One of the ugliest guys to participate in the Y2K debate before rollover was someone named Dennis olson

Those of us that have "insurance" just have to pick you people off before you break in to our homes. Outside of THAT, we'll just sit back and watch you people die off. Dennis Olson, July 1999

Ol' Dennis is over at sleazyboard still feeling smug about his "preps" Wonder if he's satisfied his desire to kill someone yet...

"For about 1/2 hour, the power was out all over the area. We, the neighborhood "Y2K nutz", had power of course. Yeah, it was tough walking down the basement stairs and flipping the start switch.

That 20kW genny purred to life, and we settled back in to watch a movie. I did go outside (we had the porch lights on) to watch the neighbors staring out their candle-lit windows, evidently hypnotized by the brilliant white lights on the front of our house.

(snicker....)"

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000

Answers

Dennis bragged early and often about how much money he spent on Y2K. I think the final bill came to $20,000 and one job (his contract job ended suddenly after the Y2K publicity).

So $20,000 real dollars + hypothetical money he might have made on that contract, divided by 30 minutes of gloating...

Doesn't sound like ol' Dennis is very good with a buck.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 07, 2000.

Where is "sleazyboard"?

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), April 07, 2000.

Hey Pro,

Still working at Burger King??? Or was it Mc Donald's?

(snicker)

watchin' the jealousy,

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

Hey doggie:

Still feeling badly about being completely and totally wrong about Y2K? I know you got a big ass, but what DID you do with all that toilet paper?

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

Isnt Dennis Olson the same freak that was trying to peddle off a baby on the Internet? I saw this fool on TV and what a mess. This guy is so fat he could live off himself for a year or so. His family must be so proud of him.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 07, 2000.

SLEAZYBOARD<

-- liu (lookitup@dictionary.com), April 07, 2000.

I rest my case. The New Debunkies House o' Trolls.

All ad hominem personal attacks welcomed. No insult too big, no cutdown too small. No nasty, vile filth-laden attack refused. Come one! Come all!

"Kick 'em when they're up... kick 'em when they're down..."

Thanks folks! I knew you'd prove me right!

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 07, 2000.

Ra, in regards to Dennis and the baby...it was another forum regular trying to find y2k adoptive parents for an unborn baby (due in December I think),..the teenage mother was going to put the child up for adoption anyhow, but wanted someone who was prepared. All Dennis did was take in the baby AND it's mother to his home, in hopes of helping her through a difficult time. He did something commendable in my opinion. Dennis had a gung-ho attitude on y2k horrors, and I think he was having fun with the scenarios..I don't know how literally he meant anyone to take those comments. His actions, in the case of the young lady and her child, speak much more about his character than his words.

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), April 07, 2000.

As one among many who were actually threatened with physical violance by Dennis Olson on numerous occasions, I reserve the right to laugh at him now. I'm sorry if you think that's cruel and/or petty.

Regarding the Y2K baby, I don't think Dennis did a bad thing, however, I do think he did the wrong thing. Dennis was very defiant that there was no need for any type of public or private adoption involvement, and that the baby was safe, but the facts don't support that. Dennis himself threatened to shoot any child protective services people who came to check on the minor mother and her son. The grandmother wanted to arrange a blackmarket adoption based on how much the prospective family had prepped, as opposed to who could give the child a good, safe, home. In a normal adoption, whether private or public, there are extensive background checks and follow-ups performed on the adoptive family, to ensure that the child is safe and well cared-for. This is part of the reason legitimate adoptions take so long. The grandmother wanted to find a family to take the baby in under seven days, and the only thing she was concerned with was how much toilet paper and MRE's the family had stashed away.

The birth mother had an open adoption already arranged, which the grandmother called off because she felt the family wasn't prepped well enough. I've thought a lot about that mother in the last few months. Where is she now? Is she safe? Was the grandmother really concerned about the safety of the child, or was she more concerned in just stashing the kid somewhere? Heck, maybe she just sold the baby on the underground market, which is certainly not unheard of in cases like these.

All I know for sure is that last xmas, a woman came on to the original Time Bomb board and offered up another woman's baby for adoption to strangers, based on how much they had prepped for Y2K. Eventually, she sent the minor mother and newborn to live with a man who threatened to shoot anyone who came to check on the health and welfare of this family. I think this situation, more than any other, underscores the hysteria and desperation surrounding Y2K at the end of last year.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 07, 2000.

I predict Y2KPro will be the next Jeffrey Dahmer type that we'll read about in the news. He's going to seek out everyone he thinks is a tinfoil, and do something even stranger than cutting off their heads and putting them in the refrigerator.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 07, 2000.

y2kpro - grow up for fucks sake

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), April 07, 2000.

So Hawk, you believe that I will become a mass-murderer simply because I choose to point out the ugliness of the Doom movement? Even for you, aircraft crash investigator (snicker) that's quite a leap in logic...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

After reading the most reliable sources of info I could find last year...I concluded that Y2K was a much greater potential threat to my family than Dennis Olson. ;-)

-- (Forgive@your.enemies), April 07, 2000.

I remember when Dennis first thought about buying a generator. Several of us tried to talk him out of buying such an expensive one, but Dennis has "champagne" tastes and had the money at the time to invest. In addition, he had future plans of a home in the country where electricity is less reliable, so didn't feel his money wasted. I don't care what other folks do with their money. My tastes tend more toward the "beer" side, and I must confess that when I bought an oil lamp in 1998 I was pretty excited when the lights went out so I could use it. I think Dennis felt this same excitement.

Yeah, I do think he bragged a bit in his "flashy" display of power to his neighbors, but some of those neighbors gave him a lot of shit when they saw contractors at work on things at his house. I think one even called the City and sent someone out to check on what he was up to. I know someone threatened him and his family after seeing the newspaper article on his preparations.

As for his status as a card-carrying "tinfoil", I think he's made it clear that he enjoys a prepared lifestyle, and has developed even stronger opinions regarding government, etc. since his Y2k research began. His choice of posting media indicate his desire to associate with folks who share his beliefs, but I haven't seen him try to choke his beliefs down MY throat, and I doubt there's ONE thing on which we agree.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

Old Y2K Pro is still as arrogant as ever. Since all of us think he is a big asshole, why does he still come here? Most likely his kids and wife also think he is a big asshole. He's got nowhere to turn, but to his computer and hassle all of us here. It is very sad to live in a world where everybody thinks you're a big asshole. I hope that when he dies, they will send him where all the other assholes go!

-- ... (...@...com), April 07, 2000.

Dennis Olson may have his problems but his post is not the story. From him saying "Hey, my generator finally paid off" he got numerous responses about steel shutters with gun ports and how he should still be prepared to pick of the neighbors. Even Chuck still seems to believe that you have to be ready for this type of gunplay. There are a lot scarier people over there than Dennis Olson.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.

---@---:

Lots of folks are arrogant. There was a good deal of arrogance displayed last year by folks who were SURE that things would go very wrong at rollover. Now, regarding your "Since all of us think he is a big asshole, why does he still come here?" statement, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't include ME in "all of us." I've read Y2k Pro's stuff on the old forum dating back quite a while. I also chatted with him in Bok's room. I do NOT think he's an asshole. He has a zealous interest in pointing out what people have said/are still saying, but a lot of people DID say some pretty scary things. In addition, Y2kPro was accused of things he never did.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

Yeah right said:

I rest my case. The New Debunkies House o' Trolls. All ad hominem personal attacks welcomed. No insult too big, no cutdown too small. No nasty, vile filth-laden attack refused. Come one! Come all!

"Kick 'em when they're up... kick 'em when they're down..."

Thanks folks! I knew you'd prove me right!

Oh-and I suppose that there are no trolls or any attacks of this kind on the sleazyboard? On this thread: http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=2395. topic

read the responses(those who would dare lurk at the other board) to Samantha Kane, and how these idiots categorically attack what they see as welfare mothers, and the overt rascism with which they view the world.

Hey, Yeah right, What exactly have we proved on this board? That human nature is human nature? If you are saying there is more decorum (do you knw what that means?) on the sleazyboard, then you better take off them rose-colored glasses.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 07, 2000.

Personally .@. I think YOU are the asshole, not Y2K Pro, who has been proven to be right on every issue hes been commenting on. Also, I would guess that the majority of participants to this forum would agree. Your comments are more aligned with the EZ board zombies so do not expect any kid glove treatment here.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 07, 2000.

Subject: Re: We lost power this evening Posted By: zog (Local user) Posted At: 4/6/00 10:37:13 pm From IP: Reply ---I suggest you invest in steel shutters and steel doors. And any other little tricks you can come up with. Sprinkler system on the roof is nice, with it's own independent water supply, for another example. Hardened small firing ports disguised as some sort of exterior ornamentation.

--by the way, good for you being a prepper, I'm not being a wiseacre by any means, now, just don't stop prepping. Once the fertilizer interacts with the impeller sometime, you will be a prime neighborhood target, just reality.

this guy is another Eric Rudolph wannabe

-- response to a 1/2 hour power outage (heycheckoutthis@crackpotontheGAmostwantedlist.com), April 07, 2000.

off off

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 07, 2000.

Off italics off italics.

I hate following someone who hasn't closed their tags.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

How do you feel about following someone who already closed them?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 07, 2000.

Hmmm:

We worked on it at the same time. You were just faster in hitting the submit button. I wouldn't want to meet up with ya on Jeopardy.

Thanks. My efforts were redundant. Had I only known............

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

Let me get this straight..."yeah right" says its y2kpro who is "proving its points"?

D.O. was the one who spewed vile crap, pro is just pointing it out.

You got yer tinfoil cap on too tight, son.

-- (pathetic@doomer.loser), April 07, 2000.

"I hope that when he dies, they will send him where all the other assholes go! "

Just as long as it's not the place Andy and INVAR went to...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000.

"So Hawk, you believe that I will become a mass-murderer simply because I choose to point out the ugliness of the Doom movement? "

What ugliness? Dennis is talking about self-defense you retard, not killing innocent people. Why do you trolls always have to take the truth and twist it around into your warped lies?

"Even for you, aircraft crash investigator (snicker) that's quite a leap in logic...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 07, 2000."

Snickering about my theory of what happened to Flight 261? What does that have to do with the subject of your post... kinda childish don't ya think?

I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation of what caused the accident, even the NTSB has not made a conclusive statement. If you're so fricking smart, why don't you tell us what happened dipshit? Oh, that's right, you're going to trust Alaska Airlines and the government to tell you the truth, 5 years from now. Yeah, right! (snicker) :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 07, 2000.

p.s. The thing that reminds me of Jeffrey Dahmer and serial killer types is your obvious obsession with this delusion you have that certain people are "tinfoils". It's extremely strange the way you seem to be hung up on that obsession. I can picture you walking down the streets with a sandwich board saying "The tinfoils are coming to get us", yelling incoherent obscenities the whole way!! LOL!! You are indeed VERY disturbed.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 07, 2000.

Don't forget the spittle spraying from the corners of Pro's mouth and his bulging eyes, or the insane CPR (Chief Polly Reactionary), armed to the teeth, and taking names of tinfoils for "prosecution" (probably with extreme prejudice). A great bunch of people here. (NOT)

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 07, 2000.

You know Hawk, if I were you, I don't think I would bring up the unfortunate matter of flight 261. I believe everyone except for yourself and your many pseudonyms thought you were a raving idiot when you made those claims. In fact, it made you sound like more of dullard than you really are. An accomplishment of some merit in itself, IMHO.

-- Larry Lurker (larry@lurker.com), April 07, 2000.

Kiss my ass Larry Lurker!! Many "psuedonyms"???? You mean the ones that Mickey falsely accused me of posting? Nice try asshole, there are a lot of people that believe in my theory and are fed up with ignorant dipshits like you. Since you're so fricking smart, let's hear it!! Come on, what's your explanation for the cause of that crash? Just like all you ignorant jerkoffs, you've got real big mouths but nothing to back it up. Fuckin wussy.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 07, 2000.

So who is this Mickey and where are the threads which he accused you of posting under a psuedonym? No, a request for the sysop to look at your ISP is not an accusation. Looks like Larry Lurker is also skeptical that anyone would believe your nonsense.

As far as reasonable explanations for the crash of AS261, you won't accept any. However any unreasonable theories are OK for you as long as they include a Y2k bug. The NTSB is more cautious about making conclusive statements before the facts are in, but you're not so hampered (although is seems that you are hampstered).

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), April 07, 2000.

fuckpissshitfuckfuckdickwadshitheadbitchfuckshitpiss.................. .....

-- Idontwanttogrowup (hawk@toysrus.kid), April 07, 2000.

Hello all...

Just to update you on the status of mother and baby. Both are doing well - healthy, happy, and together. Thanks to the kindness of Dennis and his family, the young mother made it through a very difficult time. She is back with her family now and the grandmother is a very proud one.

There were many people that helped Dennis help this family, and if he hadn't posted it for so many people to see, there is no telling what would have happened to the baby and his Mother.

I, for one, am glad that he did what he did. It just goes to show what human kindness and compassion can do. It certainly turned the lives of these two people from a possible disaster into a beautiful miracle.

In my mind, it doesn't get any better than that.

What have you done for your fellow man today?

-- LZach (lisa@texasnetworks.com), April 07, 2000.

ROTFL!!

"fuckpissshitfuckfuckdickwadshitheadbitchfuckshitpiss.............. .... .....

-- Idontwanttogrowup (hawk@toysrus.kid), April 07, 2000."

Just another example of the hypocrisy on this forum... "Larry Lurker" using pseudonyms and accusing ME of using them! Amazing.

Mickey, wow you sure popped in there very quickly! Been lurking and posting using other names have you? That figures for someone with no balls, asking the sysop to check my ISP while you've been trolling under other names. Speaking of no balls, when are you gonna put your money where your fat childish mouth is and tell all of us what caused the crash? :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 07, 2000.

Can't we all just get along??? lol...

One thing I have noticed in life, is that pushed enough, almost anyone can be "moved" to utter something like "asshole." But the people who are quickest to use the term, are ususally the most indicative of it...

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 07, 2000.

Hawker, you sure have psuedonyms on the brain. Could it be ... oh nevermind. No, I have not been posting under other names.

As far as my opinions about AS261, they have been posted on the predecessor board -- but you were ignoring me, right? If you stop playihg with yourself while watching the hampsters do it you should be able to find it quickly.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), April 07, 2000.

"One thing I have noticed in life, is that pushed enough, almost anyone can be "moved" to utter something like "asshole." But the people who are quickest to use the term, are ususally the most indicative of it..."

That would make life a lot easier if that were the case, but unfortunately it isn't quite that simple. If that were true, the government could just take all of the people who say "asshole" and lock them up until they get better (not that they aren't trying!).

In reality, the people who are doing the "pushing" are the real problem, and the person who gets so frustrated that they call them an "asshole" is being very honest, relying on instincts, which speak truthfully.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 07, 2000.

Mickey,

"If you stop playihg with yourself while watching the hampsters do it you should be able to find it quickly."

LOL!! Very mature! And you actually wonder why I ignored you?? :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 07, 2000.

Anita and LisaZ...good posts. Further, just who do you suppose went to some trouble to make sure that Dennis lost his contract job? They couldn't help bragging about it after they did it, either. Very nice group of folks.

-- (.y.@y.yyy), April 07, 2000.

Yawn. Can't find a new target eh Pro? Well, I always liked history once or twice or thrice, but.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), April 08, 2000.

So Y2K Pro is doing this crap again I see. How long before we start seeing the infamous list of "evil doomer quotes" over and over, day after day, again and again???

Give it up Pro. Nobody gives a shit.

Get a freaking life!

<:(=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 08, 2000.

y:

I remember Deb M. posting something implicating that the Debunkers had something to do with Dennis losing his contract. I reviewed both what was said on Debunkers and the accusations made, and found absolutely NO evidence to indicate that they were involved.

The folks at the client location wherein Dennis was contracting had seen a local newspaper article about Dennis and his "involvement" in Y2k. At the time, he'd taken some time off to be with his family for the CDC, but it seems someone at the office notified him that this article was the "gossip of the day." It's unclear whether the news article was the reason Dennis was let go, but until you show a post wherein someone actually stated that they notified Dennis' client, you're making false accusations in your statement.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Squawk

No, I don't have any theories on the Alaska airlines crash. That is because I have no experience as an NTSB investigator. I have not listened to the black box tapes. I have not viewed the wreckage or the crash site. I have not looked at any relevant data, nor do I have any education in the field.

Since you are making the claim about a cover-up, perhaps you can cite your educational and practical experience as a crash investigator. How many other crashes did you have hands-on experience investigating before postulating your theory on 261? How long were you in the employ of the NTSB? Perhaps you received training and experience outside the country?

Surely if you have no experience, you cannot suggest that anyone credible can provide anything of value based simply by being on the Internet? Can you?

-- Larry Lurker (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Larry, your argument won't wash with Hawk. He believes that in order to truly understand the causes of the crash of AS261, you must have no aviation experience and no knowledge of the facts. On this basis, he considers himself the most qualified to determine the cause.

This is consistent with his judgement of other's maturity. That is to say that those with no maturity are best qualified to judge that of others. Just for the record Hawk, my 5-year-old nephew is better qualified than you to judge other's maturity.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), April 08, 2000.

I can't decide if this is "Pro", CPR, Decker, Poole, or just the new site's poster boy. But one things for sure, it certainly is your mascot, here on the New DeBunkies.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 08, 2000.

That's definitely Pro. See that deranged look in his face? See the way he is trying to squeeze back into the corner away from what he is looking at? That's because he thinks he sees a "tinfoil". He is scared to death and ready to lash out if the tinfoil comes any closer.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

Looks to me like Hawk is avoiding the questions about his aviation expertise. So hawk, do you have any real experience in assessing airplane crashes or are you simply another rude man full of hot air?

-- savage (joe@ccc.com), April 08, 2000.

"savage joe",

I am simply another rude man full of hot air. What's your excuse?

All of my theory is laid out in exquisite detail in the archives. I've yet to see even an attempt at an explanation by all of the spineless, brainless, bigmouth cowards such as yourself. Good day.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

...perhaps because you are the only crash expert on this board? By the way, did I miss you providing your educational and experiential qualifications in this regard? Snicker...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Why don't you folks stop attacking Hawk and take exception with the specifics of his analysis that you don't like. Trolls attack the person. People with integrity question/discuss ideas and facts.

-- U.R. Conscience (conscience@trollsr.losers), April 08, 2000.

Sysman:

Nice to hear from you, although I still can't believe you're still defending the indefensible (Olson and the rest of the evil-doers). Big *sigh*... As for the "evil doomer quotes", there is no need for me to post them more than once here - this is a board where thoughts and ideas are not censored. Do you remember what that is like?

I'm sure you're happier on the sleazyboard, where discussion is not based on the thrust and parry of the intellectual saber, but rather how many "gun ports" are needed in the modern Tinfoil household.

Tick-tock...

<:(=

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

-- U.R. Conscience = Hawk

-- Watching (blah@blah.com), April 08, 2000.

Boy Pro, you sure are stupid! Yes, you did miss the thread when I listed my qualifications when asked by Dan the Power Man. In case you are too incompetent to find it (without a doubt), I also answered "Savage Joe" directly above in this thread...

"I am simply another rude man full of hot air. What's your excuse?" So which is it... do you have a problem with someone proposing a possible explanation, or are you just so brain dead that you prefer to be led around on a leash by what the government is willing to feed you? Probably both of the above!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

"U.R. Conscience = Hawk" NOT!!

Ask OTFR dipshit, and please, ask the good Lord to give you a brain.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

Translation

Hawk-speak into English ...no, I have no qualifications whatsoever in regards to investigating aircaft crashes. My only skills, are using the word "fuck" as a noun, verb, adverb, indefinite pronoun, and an adjective. I do have many theories about many things though - is that a qualification?

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

And Y2KPro has no education, skills, or qualifications whatsoever with the exception of making greasy fries at Burger King, popping his zits onto his computer monitor, and picking his nose and eating the boogers. That's why the only thing he is capable of is unfounded and non-constructive criticism of anyone who is more intelligent than him, which is the entire human population, who he imagines as "tinfoils" in his paranoid delusions that they are somehow threatening to him. Nice picture there, by the way. LOL!!!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

Mr Hawk

You are not the brightest of men, are you? Best regards,

-- Granny Grammar (granny@grammar.com), April 08, 2000.

Granny,

No, I'm not, never said I was. Are you?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

Just a touch of whimsy to this otherwise serious discussion of Hawk's attributes. Do a search for Dennis Olson in WI, ND and MN. Use a good search engine. It is like searching for John Smith in NYC.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 08, 2000.

Hawk-

That's really disgusting. Must you speak like that? LOL

:)

-- Debra (nowican'teat@dinner.com), April 08, 2000.

Geez Hawk -- keep opening your mouth and you remove all doubt that you truly are an asshole :-)

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 08, 2000.

Lol Debra! Yes, I must, it's the only way to describe Y2KPro, although that picture does a pretty good job. Can you picture that thing sitting at a computer picking his nose?!

dommerstomper, just think of me as a mirror. When someone acts like an asshole, they see an asshole, because I am a reflecting themselves. Do you understand the way it works yet, asshole?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

A gentleman walks up to the bar, orders a drink, and declares Hawk Is An Asshole!

Guy at the end of the bar says, hey, I take offence to that.

Bartender says, Oh, are you Hawk?

Guy says, No, Im an asshole.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 08, 2000.

oh gawd Hawk - pahleez. I take that back -- you must be a fucking asshole. Get it? gerbils anyone?

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 08, 2000.

I'm very disgusted by the comment about Dennis' weight. Shame on you.

-- cin (cinloo@aol.corn), April 08, 2000.

You tell him cin!!

Don't let Ra bother you though, he always says mean things like that, because he's just a worthless fuckwad piece of shit.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 08, 2000.

Anita S.,

You said, "I remember Deb M. posting something implicating that the Debunkers had something to do with Dennis losing his contract. I reviewed both what was said on Debunkers and the accusations made, and found absolutely NO evidence to indicate that they were involved."

That is an interesting comment you made, given that I didn't mention the Debunkers. ;-)

You said, "...until you show a post wherein someone actually stated that they notified Dennis' client, you're making false accusations in your statement."

To be precise, I would be making an unsubstantiated accusation, but not necessarily a false one. Since I've named no names, it could hardly be a false accusation. It will, however, remain unsubstantiated. I do not reveal my sources. They, in return, do not make phone calls to my employer. As previously said, a real nice group of folks. Believe it.......or not.

-- (.y.@y.yyy), April 08, 2000.

Great retort, y. If I knew how to put in an accent mark, I'd say touche.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Dennis the Tinfoil is miffed we're airing out his dirty laundry over here. Says "if any of them ever show up at my door, I hope their life insurance is paid-up." Imagine, being killed simply because you rang someones doorbell...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 08, 2000.

Why would Dennis Olson be concerned about anybody tracking him down? For Petes sake this clown was on TV right after the rollover and it would be public knowledge where he lived. Didnt any of you folks see this fool? If you had there would be no question in your minds as to why he was fired from his consultant contract. Like our resident pussy boy Hawk, Dennis likes to threaten people on the net but the first slap up side the head would have him on the floor whining for mercy.

Cin, sorry you were so easily offended. Ill take it back, hes not fat just obese.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 08, 2000.

Tarzan, I don't agree with everything that Dennis or the prospective grandmother did, but I do notice a few inaccuracies in your recounting of the tale, at least according to what I have read about it.

You say that The grandmother wanted to arrange a blackmarket adoption based on how much the prospective family had prepped, as opposed to who could give the child a good, safe, home.

Actually, they had attempted to arrange a standard adoption through usual channels. I don't recall seeing that the baby would be shipped to the preppiest family, sight unseen.

Tarzan again: In a normal adoption, whether private or public, there are extensive background checks and follow-ups performed on the adoptive family, to ensure that the child is safe and well cared-for.

I vaguely recall that their intent was to allow for a legal adoption as soon as possible after the rollover. Presumably, if the acceptable-to-mama family were a good match they would receive preferential treatment in the adoption system.

Tarzan again: The grandmother wanted to find a family to take the baby in under seven days...

She believed she was working under a strict deadline.

...and the only thing she was concerned with was how much toilet paper and MRE's the family had stashed away.

She did not say this. She was looking for people who had diapers and baby food.

The birth mother had an open adoption already arranged, which the grandmother called off...

I heard nothing about the expectant mother being upset with the grandmother about this.

...because she felt the family wasn't prepped well enough. It was not that they hadn't prepared "well enough," but that they had not prepared at all, and more importantly, that the prospective adoptive parents had assured the birth family that they had prepared. Even though they understood how important it was to the birth mother and her family, they lied about it.

Tarzan: Heck, maybe she just sold the baby on the underground market, which is certainly not unheard of in cases like these.

As far as I'm aware, they never asked for any money. Continual accusations that the baby was hawked on the black market are unfair, unless you have access to more information than was available on the greenspun threads of late last year.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 09, 2000.

Dennis said:

"if any of them ever show up at my door, I hope their life insurance is paid-up."

Y2K Pro said:

"Imagine, being killed simply because you rang someones doorbell... "

I say:

Y2K Pro is completely justified in his criticism of Dennis' behavior and threats.

-- Debra (won'tshowup@his door.com), April 09, 2000.

I have no clue how to start the italics and even less how to turn them off!

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 09, 2000.

off off off

Let's see if that helped.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 09, 2000.

Thank you Anita

-- Debra (youare@sokind.com), April 09, 2000.

I see that over on sleazyboard, anyone questioning Olson has now been deleted. His comments about killing people for simply "showing up" at his door remains - of course.

I wonder when they're going to start distributing the virtual brown shirts over there...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 09, 2000.

Dancr appears to be in error on several points. I'd like to raise them for further discussion --

Dancr>>You say that The grandmother wanted to arrange a blackmarket adoption based on how much the prospective family had prepped, as opposed to who could give the child a good, safe, home. Actually, they had attempted to arrange a standard adoption through usual channels. I don't recall seeing that the baby would be shipped to the preppiest family, sight unseen.

Just so we're all on the same side of the law here, Dancr, "attempted to arrange a standard adoption through usual channels" does not justify or defend someone who later circumvents those channels. You do the adoption legally, through channels, or you do not do it at all. I'm sorry the family in question was not comfortable with those laws and regulations, but that does not pardon or excuse what they apparently tried to do.

Dancr>>I vaguely recall that their intent was to allow for a legal adoption as soon as possible after the rollover.

Does not matter. The Y2K beliefs, fears and/or concerns of the family have no impact whatsoever on this point of the law. There's a simple question of law here; did the family attempt to circumvent the adoption process or not?

Tarzan>> The grandmother wanted to find a family to take the baby in under seven days...

Dancr>> She believed she was working under a strict deadline.

Doesn't matter. You perform adoptions within channels or you do not perform them at all. This "believed" deadline has no impact on the law whatsoever. What part of that don't you understand?

Dancr>> She was looking for people who had diapers and baby food.

Who would adopt a child who did not have these things? You raise a non-starter, Dancr.

Tarzan>> The birth mother had an open adoption already arranged, which the grandmother called off...

Dancr>> I heard nothing about the expectant mother being upset with the grandmother about this.

Called off in order to commence an illegal adoption? This might be admissible as evidence that the mother was an accessory. Further, did the mother ever come online to tell us what she thought? Or are you closer to this matter than you let on, Dancr?

Dancr>> ...because she felt the family wasn't prepped well enough.

That simply does not enter into the legal argument.

Dancr>> It was not that they hadn't prepared "well enough," but that they had not prepared at all, and more importantly, that the prospective adoptive parents had assured the birth family that they had prepared.

In retrospect, it seems perfectly apparent that the prospective adoptive family *had* prepared sufficiently, doesn't it?

Dancr>> Even though they understood how important it was to the birth mother and her family, they lied about it.

Apparently not, given the observation I made immediately above. Seems that the prospective adoptive family *was* prepared for Y2K, doesn't it? A lie is not constituted simply because that family's *perceptions* of sufficient Y2K preparations differed from those of the mother's family.

It may actually be that the prospective adoptive family lied about the amount of foodstuffs and toiletries they had stockpiled. This may be the point you are clumsily trying to make, Dancr. However, even if they had, that in no way invalidates them as acceptable parents. If a potential adoptee's parents have unusual beliefs, prospective adopters need not prove adherence to those beliefs in order to qualify to adopt the child. Those beliefs CAN be taken into account in some circumstances and in some jurisdictions, but I am aware of no legal imperative to ensure that adoptive infants and adoptive parents come from similar backgrounds with similar beliefs.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 09, 2000.

Pro, that is a lie, and you know it.

The original thread is completely intact. For those that may have an interest in the REAL thread (as opposed to pro's lies), here's the LINK.

But, here on the New DeBunkie board, I can see where folks wouldn't want to read it for themselves. This board reminds me of an inbred family. Genetically mutant, and mentally deficient, and emotionally crippled.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 09, 2000.

-- Yeah Right = Olson?

I have witnessed someone named "bunkerboy" get deleted on that thread TWICE when he challenged Olson's appalling statement.

-- Savage (joe@ccc.com), April 09, 2000.

Dennis

Actually, you're so popular over here on TB2K Uncensored that I didn't even know you existed. There seems to me to be a dearth of posts and little concern over here regarding yourself, as far as I can discern.

No one over here is "tracking you", "out to get you" or otherwise paying you any attention except for this current thread. As far as people here being concerned about you "insulting their intelligence", quit deluding yourself.

Apparently you must have said some things in the past that implied you are eager to start killing people if you perceive them to be a threat. Since you now apparently think that people over here are threatening you, how long before you start acting out your delusional fantasies?

A comment like:

Oh, it looks like they're still trying to find my home, so they can "get me" or something, for some perceived insult to their, um, "intelligence" I guess. Well, if any of them ever show up at my door, I hope their life insurance is paid-up.

is not indicative of a psychologically healthy person. Get real or get some help.

If you indicate what city you live in, I would be happy to recommend one of my associates.

Since I am not registered to post on EZBOARD, this is the only way I have of getting you this message.

It's also sad that posts regarding you on EZBOARD by persons who also post here are apparently being deleted. That's indicative of the reason why I and others have never bothered to register there.

-- Dr. Shrink (drshrink@shrink.asc), April 09, 2000.

I saw those two posts by bunkerboy as well. Does bunkerboy even post over here? Why aren't MY posts being deleted? [Would that question constitute "looking a gift horse in the mouth?"]

Regarding this whole adoption thing, I don't know if I could cope with one of these "open" adoptions. I know it's the latest trend and all, and the child and birth mother keep ties, etc., but from the viewpoint of THIS mother, I'd feel VERY envious if *I* were the one caring for the child through sickness, etc. and the birth mother could just enjoy the child when she felt like it. It's like "I get all the work and YOU get all the play" type of envy. Fortunately, as I think Nadine pointed out, the mother and baby are back living with the grandmother, so it looks like even an "open" adoption is now a moot issue.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 09, 2000.

Anita:

Why aren't MY posts being deleted? [Would that question constitute "looking a gift horse in the mouth?"]

I guess it is the mark of Cain. :o) Knowing you, I am sure that you can live with it....

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 09, 2000.

What the heck is a TINFOIL anyway?

-- cin (cinloo@aol.corn), April 09, 2000.

The two main threads where the "Internet baby adoption" discussion took place can be found here and here.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 09, 2000.

Cin:

A "Tinfoil" is a term for an ultimate Doomer. Not the folks who thought it might be prudent to stock up the pantry for Y2K, but those individuals who "knew" it would be "bad". Taken from the common misconception among the mentally ill that "the government is sending radio waves directly into my brain - therefore I must wear a tinfoil hat to block the waves". There are actually very few real Tinfoils around - they tend to congregate with other folks who believe in "poison contrails, NWO, Black helicopters, concentrations camps for GIs, etc. Sound familiar?

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 09, 2000.

Pro,

How many thicknesses do you wear?

-- Dr. Doom (doomster@tinfoil.now), April 09, 2000.

A Debonker is someone who spends so many hours sitting in front of a monitor tracking down, ridiculing and exposing "tinfoils" that his ass has grown into such an enormous, cellulite-riddled lump of lard that all those children whose pictures are on milk cartons could be stuck in his crack and he wouldn't even know it. Sound familiar?

-- (Get@over.it), April 09, 2000.

ROTFLMAO!!!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 09, 2000.

Hawk-

You would be ROTFLYAO.

How do you do those emoticons here? I'd like to talk to you with them.

-- Debra (feelingsspeaklouder@than words.com), April 09, 2000.

Hi Debra! Lol! I can't help it, I really get a kick out of Pro. I'd like to meet him and see where he lives.

The emoticons work the same way as any image file - do you know how to do those? Right click to view the source of this page and you'll see.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 09, 2000.

Testing

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 09, 2000.

Hawk-

Do I have to type that out for each of the different emoticons? Is there a shortcut?

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 09, 2000.

Testing

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 09, 2000.

Deb,

No, you shouldn't have to type it out. All you do is right click on the emoticon images from EZ and choose "copy image location" (netscape), or select "properties" (explorer), then use your cursor to select and copy the link. I pasted some of my favorites into a notepad text file so that they are handy when I need them. Have fun!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 09, 2000.

On your last one that didn't work, you forgot the space between "img" and "src", and you need to put the image link in quotes.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 09, 2000.

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 09, 2000.

Why is his tongue just hanging there?

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 09, 2000.

-- Debra (!!!!@!!!!.com), April 09, 2000.

LOL! Dennis the human dougnut is really frothing at the mouth over at sleazy. Looks like he's ready to go postal at any moment!

I don't think I "hurled" ANYTHING at the people over on neo- Debunker's. I HAVE, however, been threatened by those "people" on multiple occaisions. I take such threats very seriously. I will protect my family and myself from any attacks by such creatures.

It's laughable how they took the "if they show up at my door" comment. Here's a TINY little point to consider: why would one of those creatures hunt down my home EXCEPT to attempt harm to my family? Am I not entitled to defend them? Am I not entitled to SAY that I intend to defend them?

You DeBunkers can froth at the mouth all you want, but if any of you were to attempt harm to my family, I WILL terminate that threat with extreme prejudice. Wanna come over and "slap me upside the head" as some of you have said and find out?

Why don't you stay over at the new cesspool, where you belong. I'm not a doomer anymore(but still an idiot); I just intend to stay prepared for whatever emergencies may occur in our area. Because of that I'm labelled a "pathetic tinfoil". I took in a young mom and her baby so that they wouldn't give up the baby in haste. For that I'm threatened with jail, prosecution and violent attack. I had a chuckle when the power went out and I was the only house in the neighborhood with lights, and the filthy troll crowd had a field day. So be it.

You DeBunkers can go F**K yoursleves. Leave the rest of us alone. We're just fine without the likes of you. So is the rest of the world, for that matter...

-- Savage (joe@ccc.com), April 09, 2000.

LOL Deb, good work! The yellow one looks a bit sick, but the green one is alive and well! (different colors? hmmm, interesting)

-- Hwk (flyin@high.again), April 09, 2000.

I'm not a doomer anymore(but still an idiot) Well that satisfies the research. Given enough time, enough monkies and enough terminals; they will evenually produce Macbeth. Gone now.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 09, 2000.

Mr. Olson clearly has some psychological problems including, but not limited to paranoia, delusional self-importance, and detachment from reality. I wonder how long it will be before he discovers that government agents are controlling his mind from satellites?

Frankly, it's amazing that the sysops at EZBOARD tolerate his rantings, while at the same time deleting reasonable posts by selected members of this board.

-- Dr. Shrink (drshrink@shrink.asc), April 09, 2000.

This is the funniest thread I've ever read in my life. Right in the middle of the grand old set-to, up pops this nifty picture by Yeah Right. Then Hawk begins giving Debra emoticon lessons. Debra says, "Why is his tongue just hanging there," I take a look and just howl.

The discussion of different types of assholes is very educational, especially the one by Get@Over it, and I'm forever grateful to Hawk and Y2K Pro for the best entertainment in town.

But who in the hell is Dennis Olson?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 09, 2000.

Gilda, Im sure that someone will take the time to give you more details but Dennis Olson is somewhat of a celebrity doomer of the worst kind. He spent most of his time before the rollover threatening those who would dare come near him looking for any of his precious preps, of which he admittedly spent over $20K. He was interviewed after the rollover and he came off as some kind of Jaba the Hut, waddling around his little cave home waiting for the evil spirits to attack.

He continues to be an ugly soul and then there is the baby deal that should be explained by someone that has all of the facts. BTW, are you close to Springfield? Love that area.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 09, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Sal, as far as I'm aware, until the final papers are signed, a prospective birth mother in most open adoptions has every right to discontinue her interest in a particular agency. You seem to be suggesting that this baby's birth family has done something illegal or attempted to do something illegal. If this is what you're saying, then what law do you suggest that they have broken, exactly? If they broke a contract with the agency, then the agency would be taking action against them. There's no mention of any such problem in the update someone provided earlier on this thread.

This family didn't "circumvent" the process, as you say. The process allowed for them to have approval of the adoptive family. The prospective adoptive family did not meet the standards of the birth family. The expectant birth mother pulled out of the deal exactly according to the provisions of her arrangement with the agency as far as I can tell.

You seem to think that adoptions may only happen with the use of some government-approved agent when you say "You perform adoptions within channels or you do not perform them at all." Oh, really?? Perhaps you've never heard of private adoption.

You keep referring to an illegal adoption. What illegal adoption are you talking about? What is it about the possible future adoption that seemed to you would be illegal? You say that whether or not the prospective adoptive family had prepared does not enter into what you call "the legal argument." To what "legal argument" do you refer?

You confuse "not having needed extra-ordinary preparations for the rollover" with "having been prepared for the potential of needing such preparations." Apparently, the birth family would not have been considering giving the baby up for adoption in the first place except for the fact that they considered themselves inadequate to the financial burden of additional preparations for the baby. The fact is that the prospective adoptive family understood the birth mother's concern about the potential for disruptions, and lied to her about having already prepared for the baby. Whether you think this was sufficient reason to reject the deal is really quite irrelevant. It was the birth mother's decision to make, and not yours.

You say that prospective adoptive families need not prove that they adhere to some unusual beliefs of a birth family. As a matter of fact, though, in an open adoption, they may need to. The way it works is, if I want, I can specify that I want my child to go to nudist atheist vegetarians on a secluded self-sufficient farm, who are committed to not vaccinating for childhood illnesses, already homeschooling other children, and agree to allow me quarterly visitations. Good luck meeting my criteria. But if you don't meet them, you can't call some adoption police and whine that my criteria are unreasonable. You would need to go look for a birth mother that seeks adoptive parents who like to talk about things they don't know anything about.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 10, 2000.

RIGHTS OF THE BIRTH MOTHER WHO WAS 15 YEARS OLD? WHAT RIGHTS ARE THOSE?

None that the posters to any ****extremist list for y2k prep**** should be discussing.

Suppose that baby or the mother had gotten sick near dennis j. "I'm being picked on" OLSON's CAT in his basement??

I'm tired of the trolling by a few who rant about new de- bunkers/pollies.

DENNIS J. the "VICTIM OF NON-DOOMERS' PERSECUTION" should be seeing someone who can "ANALYZE" why he blew money on PREPs ($20,000) and NOW IS HURTING because of the "Feast or Famine" nature of contract programming. If he can't hold a steady job, he needs to find out why. Then he could take care of his family in the way he *claims* he did for Y2k.

Then, we need to explore why some TROLLS AND EXTREMIST use any list to........excuse themselves and dennis j. olson for any *extremism* they assume is "our right".

LIKE IGNORING THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN AND NOT REPORTING A HOMELESS 15 Yr. OLD NEW MOTHER AND DAYS OLD BABY TO AUTHORITIES.

GET IT STRAIGHT, THERE WERE *DOOMERS* AND *NON-DOOMERS*. And the "NON- DOOMERS" represent the Vast Majority of the World.

EVERY ATTEMPT to portray the world as the two camps, "Doomers and Pollies" was just another device by the propagandists at: "THEM Vs. US" CULTISM that was encouraged by North, Hyatt and Yourdon to the end and even now after the First Quarter of TEOTW.

It is that *SPURIOUS* "FOR MONEY" effort that the De-Bunkers and I exposed to the LIGHT OF DAY AND CONTINUE TO EXPOSE FOR THE FRAUD IT IS EVEN NOW AS ....Yourdon tries to milk one more book to peddle to the fringe elements he moved 250,000 copies of his y2k comic book tb2000.

AND IN THE BACKWASH OF THE PROPAGANDA ARISES THE **MISLEAD** LIKE DENNIS J. "I WILL SHOOT PEOPLE AT MY FRONT DOOR" OLSON who shows up on National TV NEWS as "Dennis Olson, Madison, Wisc." with his Generator that can "power 2 houses. Why 2 houses? Y2k" said the Narrator.

DENNIS J. Victim should be remembered for one thing: he represents the thousands of people mislead down the y2k road by yourdon, hyatt and north.

BUT WHAT HE DID RE: THE 15 YEAR OLD UNWED VICTIM OF A RAPE OR "DATE RAPE" BIRTH MOTHER AND HER MOTHER AND HER CHILD.......should be used as a *text book example* long after he gives his preps to a food bank as he stated on national tv news.

AND WHEN HE *CRIES* THAT HE JUST WANTS TO BE LEFT ALONE BY THE "DE- BUNKERS" AND "TURNCOATS" FROM THE YOURDON CHURCH, REMEMBER IT.

FOR IT SHOWS THAT DENNIS J. VICTIM IS A VICTIM ALSO.

Now we have one of the Yourdon Zombies throwing in his/her 1/2 cent views defending "Dennis The Victim" who can't even take care of himself in normal times because of his irrational FEARS.

And make no mistake about this, Dennis J. Victim is truly a representative VICTIM of the ONLINE HYSTERICS WHIPPED UP BY EDWARD YOURDON AND HIS RING LEADERS THEMSELVES FOLLOWING THE TACTICS OF ONE GARY NORTH............MISLEADING ALL WITH THEIR *PSEUDO-SURVIVALIST* PROPAGANDA FOR MONEY.

TAKE YOURDON AND NORTH OUT OF THE PICTURE AND DENNIS J. VICTIM IS JUST ANOTHER AVERAGE *MALCONTENT* ONLINE RANTING ABOUT THEM AND HIS "RIGHTS" TO BEAR ARMS AND.....

........MOST IMPORTANTLY.....HIS GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO SHOOT HIS MOUTH OFF AND MAKE A FOOL OF HIMSELF.

ADD IN Y2K AND YOU GET.............THE TRAGEDY OF DENNIS J. VICTIM,,,,,,,MISLEADING A 15 YEAR OLD *********RAPE VICTIM****** NEW BORN MOTHER, THE 15 YEAR OLD'S MOTHER AND TRYING TO BULL SHIT HIS WAY ABOUT ALL THIS BEING "SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT".

NOT ONCE, NEVER DID HE CALL IN THE AUTHORITIES BECAUSE IN HIS ARROGANT, BRAINWASHED Y2K POLLUTED BRAIN, **HE**,,,,,,,DENNIS J. REALLY *KNEW BEST*.

(ESPECIALLY AFTER A TV CREW FROM MILWAUKEE SHOWS UP TO GIVE HIM SOME NATIONAL EXPOSURE.)

Get the rest of the picture now:........................a 15 year old unmarried "Birth Mother"'s Mother had placed the "for adoption" note on TB I and the note even contained a line about the baby being blue eyed and "already has hair" (blonde).

The "open" adoption desired was specific for a Y2k "preparer" which in less than 20 days would include the entire world population who had prepared and not overprepared like the brain washed Yourdon nuts.

FIFTEEN YEARS OLD, UNWED MOTHER HAS ***RIGHTS TO WHAT*****?

TO LET HER MOTHER PUT A NOTICE ON AN EXTREMIST LIST WHOSE LEADER "KNEW WHAT HE KNEW" AND WHAT HE KNEW LEAD HIM TO **COMPLETELY WRONG CONCLUSIONS ON *THE NEED TO PREP**??

AND LET HERSELF AND NEW BORN BE SHELTERED BY SOMEONE THREATENING "DEATH" TO ALL FOR COMING TO HIS DOOR? WHO ROUTINELY DELIGHTED IN DISCUSSING THOSE WHO WOULD BE "SORRY" THEY HAD NOT "PREPPED" BECAUSE HE HAD?

WHO AFTER THE POST RANTED ABOUT *NEVER* ALLOWING THE *AUTHORITIES* NEAR THE NEW BORN ??

THERE WASN'T EVEN MENTION OF HAVING HER PASTOR OR SPIRITUAL ADVISOR IN THE PICTURE.

DANCR "Whether you think this was sufficient reason to reject the deal is really quite irrelevant. It was the birth mother's decision to make, and not yours. "

WRONG.

AND

DANCR You would need to go look for a birth mother that seeks adoptive parents who like to talk about things they don't know anything about.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 10, 2000.

WRONG ___________________

EXCUSE ME "Dancer"? It was Dennis J. "I will shoot Dah Pollies who come to my door because my insurance is paid" who took the TWO CHILDREN in this case in rather than doing what 99 of the people anywhere would do, call the Proper Local Authorities.

The "rights" of the Birth Mother?

That was the whole point of the protest that arose over this and lead to the Wisconsin Authorities stepping into the picture.

HEY, "Dancer" the "birth Mother" with such "rights" making such "decisions" WAS A WHOPPING 15 YEARS OLD, UNMARRIED AND THEREFORE, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW IN MOST STATES, COUNTRIES AND RELIGIONS.........."AN INFANT" HERSELF.

And you had all the screaming Banshees charging "statism" and all such anti-Gov. Rants typical of Fat Dennis.

_______________________ . Whether you think this was sufficient reason to reject the deal is really quite irrelevant. It was the birth mother's decision to make, and not yours.

You say that prospective adoptive families need not prove that they adhere to some unusual beliefs of a birth family. As a matter of fact, though, in an open adoption, they may need to. The way it works is, if I want, I can specify that I want my child to go to nudist atheist vegetarians on a secluded self-sufficient farm, who are committed to not vaccinating for childhood illnesses, already homeschooling other children, and agree to allow me quarterly visitations. Good luck meeting my criteria. But if you don't meet them, you can't call some adoption police and whine that my criteria are unreasonable. You would need to go look for a birth mother that seeks adoptive parents who like to talk about things they don't know anything about.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 10, 2000.

AND "DANCR" NEEDS TO STOP TRYING TO "DEFEND" .......WHAT IS DEFENSELESS.

cpr

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), April 10, 2000.

"Sal, as far as I'm aware, until the final papers are signed, a prospective birth mother in most open adoptions has every right to discontinue her interest in a particular agency."

Agency? Or family? Which did the young mother decide against? You appear to know more about this than you let on; please, enlighten us.

"You seem to be suggesting that this baby's birth family has done something illegal or attempted to do something illegal."

This is entirely possible, based on what I've read on this thread, and based on the original thread on TB2000.

"If this is what you're saying, then what law do you suggest that they have broken, exactly?"

Don't know the laws of the state the mother is in; I can say that a hustled-up adoption (as in: "we need to get the child into a good home NOW") brings Family and Child Services down like hawks in my state, if they get wind of it. My state takes a very dim view of people who perform speedy open adoptions and don't bother to advise the state of what's going on.

"If they broke a contract with the agency, then the agency would be taking action against them. There's no mention of any such problem in the update someone provided earlier on this thread."

Given that no one from the agency is posting here, I wouldn't expect to *see* such a post here, would you?

"This family didn't "circumvent" the process, as you say."

Based on what's been said on this thread, including your posts, I think they may very well have circumvented the process. If you know more, I'm certainly willing to hear about it.

"The process allowed for them to have approval of the adoptive family. The prospective adoptive family did not meet the standards of the birth family. The expectant birth mother pulled out of the deal exactly according to the provisions of her arrangement with the agency as far as I can tell."

Did the mother make that decision, or did her family make that decision for her? Perhaps someone here can get the young mother to come forward and remove questions from our mind. My legal objection is not that the arrangement was cancelled, but rather what apparently happened *after* the arrangement was cancelled.

Once again, you sound as if you are very close to this series of events. If so, then I'd greatly appreciate some further information from you.

"You seem to think that adoptions may only happen with the use of some government-approved agent when you say "You perform adoptions within channels or you do not perform them at all." Oh, really?? Perhaps you've never heard of private adoption."

I know very well what private adoption is. Perhaps you are unaware that the state has a role, even in private adoptions. You do not mean to suggest that people can pass babies around, totally out of the sight of child welfare agencies, do you?

I do not "think" that adoptions happen only with government approval. I "know" that it is illegal for adoptions to happen without government *knowledge.* There are "channels" to use, regardless of the type of adoption being sought.

"You keep referring to an illegal adoption. What illegal adoption are you talking about? What is it about the possible future adoption that seemed to you would be illegal?"

Halting a legal adoption proceeding, based on the flimsy reasons you have brought forth, then moving forward with some sort of pseudo- foster custody, in the belief that "a legal adoption could be done after the rollover." That's illegal, Dancr. You do not perform any sort of custody transfer -- certainly not "adoption" of a child -- without the knowledge of the state. Do you not understand that?

Any adoption must be done legally, regardless of the family's Y2K beliefs. Tell me, did the mother's family anticipate serious problems at the rollover? If so, then that might be evidence that they did not believe that a legal adoption WOULD be possible, and were, therefore, circumventing legal procedure. In fact, depending on the laws of the mother's home state, that could constitute prima facie evidence.

"You say that whether or not the prospective adoptive family had prepared does not enter into what you call "the legal argument." To what "legal argument" do you refer?"

Whether the reasons involved in circumventing the legal adoption process were legal or not. We have already established that the actions involved in such circumvention were possibly illegal. If the mother got cold feet, that's one thing. If she believed (or her family pressured her to believe) that a legal adoption was not possible before (or especially after) the rollover, that's something else entirely. The prospective adoptive family might, under state law, have cause for legal action, though I doubt they'd proceed.

"You confuse "not having needed extra-ordinary preparations for the rollover" with "having been prepared for the potential of needing such preparations."

You seem to think that matters at all in the legal picture of things. It does not. In any event, the prospective adoptive parents *were* "prepared" for the rollover, regardless of your specious "potential" argument.

"Apparently, the birth family would not have been considering giving the baby up for adoption in the first place except for the fact that they considered themselves inadequate to the financial burden of additional preparations for the baby. The fact is that the prospective adoptive family understood the birth mother's concern about the potential for disruptions, and lied to her about having already prepared for the baby."

What did they *say* to the mother/mother's family? You give the distinct impression of knowing far more about this (or being much closer to the matter) than you let on.

Further, I personally think all this talk about "the family was in a big hurry to get the child adopted" is rather foolish. Didn't the family *know* that the young lady was pregnant? Seems to me that would have been a signal to get moving with an adoption before the child was born, if adoption was indeed their intent.

"Whether you think this was sufficient reason to reject the deal is really quite irrelevant."

Not in a court's view. I'd have no problem arguing the point and making it stick before a judge in my state; perhaps just as easy in the mother's state, too, depending on the laws there.

"It was the birth mother's decision to make, and not yours."

I didn't say it was my decision to make. However, courts can and *do* make these sorts of choices. Bear that in mind, won't you?

"You say that prospective adoptive families need not prove that they adhere to some unusual beliefs of a birth family. As a matter of fact, though, in an open adoption, they may need to."

So tell me, Dancr -- did the mother's family tell the state that they planned to transfer custody to Mr. Olson before or after the fact? Or did they bother to clue the state in at all?

"The way it works is, if I want, I can specify that I want my child to go to nudist atheist vegetarians on a secluded self-sufficient farm, who are committed to not vaccinating for childhood illnesses, already homeschooling other children, and agree to allow me quarterly visitations. Good luck meeting my criteria. But if you don't meet them, you can't call some adoption police and whine that my criteria are unreasonable. You would need to go look for a birth mother that seeks adoptive parents who like to talk about things they don't know anything about."

You are correct to a point. However, if agencies can't place a child according to a family's wishes, they'll look for any qualified family that can provide care and support for the child.

And if you're that picky, then obviously you're not in a hurry, as the mother's family claimed. Awfully hard to be choosy *and* in a hurry, don't you think?

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 10, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Have you tried a decaffeinated coffee?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 10, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

We have a case of "simultaneous postings." The last comment was for CPR, in case it weren't obvious. Something for Sal, probably forthcoming.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 10, 2000.

Reuben, you are one sick, twisted motherfucker. You are the Paul Milne of polly motherfuckers. So I guess that makes you a motherfucker's motherfucker. King Troll.

You know, Dennis is a friend of mine. We live in the same town, and we talked about Y2K before the end of 1999. He gave me addies for a bunch of sites, including DeBunkie's & Biffy's. I have read your rantings and threats for nearly a year. You are a very dangerous man, an obvious obsessive-compulsive, who should be locked up safely away from society for a long long time.

Tell me, have you turned in your hit-lists to the FBI yet, as you promised? Just as nutcases like North made preppers look bad, nutcases like you (and y2kpro) make pollies look bad. Spiteful and childish, and borderline psycho. I don't think your mommies gave you enough toys to play with when you were young, so now you just play with yourselvs.

One massive nutcase polly circle-jerk, that's how I see it.

Here on the New DeBunkie's.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 10, 2000.

Yeah Right, you say that you are a friend of Dennis Olsons and you talked with him about Y2K in 1999. Earth shaking revelations Im sure. Tell us sir what you learned from these talks? Are you upset that CPR was right on the money and folks like Dennis had it all wrong? Or are you just another confirmed doomer that will never admit to the facts of reality? Dont be ashamed to admit to this for you have lots of company. You do know where to find them dont you?

And Dancr, Ive visited your website and find you to be just another self-promoting weirdo. Lose the pictureyech!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 10, 2000.

gawd -- I HOPE he turned his list over to the FBI! People wanna spew their THREATS on the internet like big, bad ass boyz that they think they are, then they should have the balls to allow those threats to undergo the scrutiny of the authorities.

Free speech gives the paranoids the right to incriminate themselves, but they don't like the repercussions? Hypocrites the whole bunch of them.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 10, 2000.

I never had to "turn any list over to the FBI". I never tracked the minor IDIOTS who posted to EY's I, II or III. I also assumed that the FBI and LOCAL POLICE WERE ***MONITORING** NORTH, YOURDON and HYATT so that eliminated the need for me to bother with them.

And

BUT

IF ...........SOMEONE MADE AN OPEN THREAT TOWARDS ANOTHER ON THE INTERNET AND YOU KNEW BOTH PARTIES WHAT WOULD YOU DO??

WAIT FOR THE ACT??

NOTHING IS BETTER FOR THE "BOILS OF SOCIETY" THAN ***EXPOSING THEM** TO THE LIGHT OF *PUBLIC REVIEW* WHERE SENSIBLE PEOPLE CAN EVALUATE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE: **FRUITCAKES**.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), April 10, 2000.

I CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU!

Do you feel more like a MAN when you shout like that? I think you have Little Man's Syndrome. You're just a short little fuck who desperately needs to be a bigshot somehow. You're as pathetic as Gary North.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 10, 2000.

Changing the subject only slightly, the conversation on the EZBOARD thread has moved along to some threats allegedly made on the adoption threads against Dennis. One poster didn't notice the threats referenced, and I'm a bit hard-pressed to see them myself. Were threats made against Dennis or his family on the adoption threads? Can ANYONE cite an example of this?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 10, 2000.

The internet is full of websites that promote sexual violence, child pornography, prostitution, Holocaust revisionism, white supremacy, black supremacy, terrorism, egregious homophobia, cyber warfare, and a host of dangerous boils on the butt of humanity. Could one safely assume that you apply equal zeal in defending society from those websites? Or, do you honestly believe that Yourdon/Hyatt/North have more internet prominence, and pose a larger threat to a lawful society? Are there statistics demonstrating that the insignificant minority who over-prepared for a non-existent Y2K threat have committed crimes equal in number to those perpetrated by white supremacists or child pornographers?

-- (Adelle@home.now), April 10, 2000.

RA, thanks for your answer. This guy sounds like a real "ugly soul." This is one of the reasons I quit posting awhile before the rollover. The doomers seemed to get more militant and threatening, and while I wasn't afraid I would encounter any, I certainly didn't want to talk to them.

I hope some of those spending their last dime on preps and stocking an arsenal, are feeling foolish, but I doubt it. So maybe I'll just hope they are feeling a little economic pinch as they try and eat their way through beans and rice.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 10, 2000.

Were threats made against Dennis or his family on the adoption threads? Can ANYONE cite an example of this?

No threats were ever made against Dennis or his family. The closest thing to a threat can be found on this thread in which someone threatens to notify the authorities (DFACS) about this incident. Dennis' response was:

Oh, and if any "official" shows up here without a warrant, it's gonna get ugly, so FOR THE GOOD OF ALL, go tilt at some OTHER windmill.

While it was never clearly stated what "it's gonna get ugly" referred to, most people assumed that it indicated a violent confrontation. Either way, this and subsquent posts by Dennis in that thread clearly indicate that he did not want any authorities involved in any way.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 10, 2000.

The internet is full of websites that promote sexual violence, child pornography, prostitution, Holocaust revisionism, white supremacy, black supremacy, terrorism, egregious homophobia, cyber warfare, and a host of dangerous boils on the butt of humanity.

The extreme doomers that I *know* partake of most of the above. You can find them lurking under many names/persuasions at these sites.

Their delusional dysfunction kind of goes hand in hand with the seedy side. Idiots that they are --- they leave a cybertrail a mile long.

I have little doubt they are already on *lists*. They are arrogant enough to boast that they are on a list, but despise intrusion into their personal lifes like a badge of honor. Kind of like a dumn f**k that deals drugs and thinks he's homefree -- all the while the ATF has been building their case.

What I have noticed as an inherent trait --- they really are frauds in their personal life. I love it when shrinks profile them. They can hit the nail, while we just swing wildly.

Like I said -- they incriminate themselves.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 10, 2000.

The internet is full of websites that promote sexual violence, child pornography, prostitution, Holocaust revisionism, white supremacy, black supremacy, terrorism, egregious homophobia, cyber warfare, and a host of dangerous boils on the butt of humanity.

The extreme doomers that I *know* partake of most of the above. You can find them lurking under many names/persuasions at these sites.

Pretty serious charges, fuckface. As Anita said above, how about some proof? Or is it "because I said so, It's true"? Pathetic fucking Debunkie prick.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 10, 2000.

Sorry I save the names/addresses/emails for the FBI. Maybe one day I'll post a few of their pictures for yah though. How'z that?

Why do you have a problem believing deviants come in many varieties? Awfully defensive bud.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 10, 2000.

Yeah Right sounds like the little boy caught jacking off behind the barn. How many different names are you using Yeah? You wouldnt by chance be the famous village idiot Hawk would you?

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 10, 2000.

Yeah Right = Hawk? Gotta be.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 10, 2000.

As I responded to Dennis on the EZBOARD forum, I must be a helluva lot more stupid than I look, but to ME, these generalizations about folks just muddy the water further. If you have PROOF, POST IT! I don't care if Hawk posts the proof, or CPR posts the proof, but until someone comes up with some proof for these allegations, you're blowing in the wind.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 10, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Sal: "Agency? Or family?" you ask, "Which did the young mother decide against?" Well, both, actually. But the point was that you were complaining that the birth family was not going through "proper channels," which I took to mean that you thought they somehow had a legal obligation to continue in their relationship with the agency.

You ask: "You do not mean to suggest that people can pass babies around, totally out of the sight of child welfare agencies, do you?" Who ever said that there would be an adoption without a government blessing? The family was looking for someone to take their baby in for the rollover. The possibility of a later legal adoption was only that, not a promise.

You suggest that one cannot arrange for children to be taken care of without government involvement. I disagree. Once, when I was sick, and my husband was going to be out of town, I sent my son to live with grandma. Plenty of families run into hard times and make similar informal arrangements with friends and relatives.

I will not applaud the wisdom of sending children, during an expected famine, to live with a family that has been featured on national news for having a grocery store in their basement. Perhaps they weren't aware of the Olsen Family's celebrity status. While this was probably a huge strategic error, it doesn't seem to me to come anywhere near the illegal zone.

You say, "We have already established that the actions involved in such circumvention were possibly illegal." I disagree. As I explained, there was no circumvention. The way I hear tell of the story the birth mother had the right to approve or to disapprove of the prospective adoptive parents, for whatever reason or for no reason at all. She disapproved. This WAS the process, and it's a very common process today.

How well the prospective adoptive parents would have been able to handle an uneventful rollover proves nothing about how well they would have handled a run on the grocery stores, to say nothing of a global economic collapse. The birth mother's criterion was that they be prepared for the possibility of significant disruptions. They were not. Buzzzzz. They lose. Next candidate?

You chided the birth family for not having earlier identified an appropriate family to adopt this baby. Perhaps their Y2K worries intensified toward the end of the year. It was probably not an easy matter to find a family that was both concerned enough about Y2K to prepare, and yet still interested in taking on a baby.

You say courts can and do make decisions about whether a birth mother in an open adoption has reasonable standards in selecting prospective adoptive parents. Citation, please.

You ask me if the baby's family informed the government that they intended to transfer custody to Mr. Olsen. I don't know why you would think that I would have this kind of information, but I do have some comments about your question. Perhaps you're unaware that Mr. Olsen is married. I don't know if the baby was born before or after the mother moved to live with the Olsen family. I also don't know if the baby was born before or after the rollover. Perhaps this information is available on the earlier thread, but if I read it I have forgotten the facts.

In any case, the arrangement appeared to me to be one family temporarily sending their children to live with this family where they believed they would be well looked after. I sincerely don't see why the government would need to be involved in this situation. Several people on this thread and on an earlier forum have stated that they thought there should have been some notification of "the authorities." What authorities? Why anybody thinks this is anyone's business other than these two families is beyond me.

You say that "if agencies can't place a child according to a family's wishes, they'll look for qualified family that can provide care and support for the child." Actually, when the birth mother retains a final right of approval over any prospective adoptive family, she ultimately has the power to decide whether the baby is adopted at all. There's nothing the agency can do about that. You ask "Awfully hard to be choosy *and* in a hurry, don't you think?" I'm sure it was rough for everyone involved.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 10, 2000.

Who ever said that there would be an adoption without a government blessing? The family was looking for someone to take their baby in for the rollover. The possibility of a later legal adoption was only that, not a promise.

This was never indicated in the original post, which I linked to above. The title of the post was:

Perfectly Healthy newborn needs GI family to adopt him ASAP!

and the request was as follows:

The mother is not in a position to care for the child for any time at all, but wants a GI family to adopt it (so will feel secure about it living thru Y2K).

If anyone well-prepared for Y2K is looking for a healthy infant to adopt with GREAT speed, please contact PRIVATEONE@spinfinder.com very quickly.

No mention was ever made about this being temporary. They were looking for someone to adopt the infant. And they were looking for the prospective parents via an internet bulletin board. This was an act that certainly appeared to be illegal as well as potentially dangerous to the child. I believe that is the issue that disturbed people.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 10, 2000.

Hmmm,

I agree, if the archive was read, you would see, exactly as you stated the reason I was so concerned/upset. I couldnt understand a baby attempted to be 'placed' via the internet.

Perhaps in the future it WILL be that way, but I'm an oldster and to me it was painful to see an innocent child being posted for adoption.

I hope it doesnt ever come to that, but we'll see if its not already that way. I also wondered if it were legal.

BTW, i do hope the innocent lil one got a GREAT loving home.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 10, 2000.

Hmmm, trying to reason with Dancr can be very frustrating, as she will decide the facts as she sees them. Check out her self-promoting website and you can see for yourself what a fruitcake she is. Just another doomer dummy that was wrong and refuses to get over it. I wouldnt want to be her children growing up in that kind of loony environment.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 10, 2000.

Shove it, Sifting.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), April 10, 2000.

"I wouldnt want to be her children growing up in that kind of loony environment."

I wouldn't want to be Sifting if he ever runs into the Hawk in person. Even though he is just a puny little fucking punk, I'd kick his ass into the next universe before he even knows what hit him. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 10, 2000.

Hmmm and Consumer, if you put yourself into the mind of a mother and people who genuinely believe that major calamities would happen because of Y2K, it's easy to see that their intentions were good. They genuinely had the babie's best interest in mind. Using the internet as the venue for finding suitable parents when viewed in that light makes sense, as it is a speedy way to reach a large number of people that they would consider suitable, i.e., those prepared for y2k, and into the adoption market. Time was a factor as it was close to roll-over. Standard adoption venues, agencies and procedures can be very lenthy.

As one always on the lookout for the safety of children on the internet, this perticular instance did not outrage me last year, as it seemed clear to me that the prospective parents would have been screened to be suitable ones.

Ofcourse, in hindsight, now it is clear that this was unneccessary and could even be said to have been a choice made in a panic, caused by irrational fears about Y2K.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 10, 2000.

Evenin Hawkey.

I was reading your post above:

I wouldn't want to be Sifting if he ever runs into the Hawk in person. Even though he is just a puny little fucking punk, I'd kick his ass into the next universe before he even knows what hit him.

Have you ever seen the poster Sifting in person? I have never seen any of the folks that have posted to the various Y2K forums but I have seen pictures of a few, namely: Chuck the Night Driver (and wife), dancr, Dennis Olson, Steve Heller, and Bruce Beach. There may have been others but I dont recall. Now Ive never seen or talked to Sifting so I wouldnt have a clue as to how big, old, or mean he/she is. The same goes for you. I would guess that most folks have a mental image of what you look like and the reality is probably much different.

So when you make the childish claims that you are so famous for, you simply confirm your image as an immature and self-degrading individual. Why would you think that anyone would take your empty threats seriously? Im not suggesting that you change your act, to the contrary. I for one enjoy watching you flip around the emotional spectrum and would miss the entertainment you provide. Ive told you before that I would like to meet you someday. That goes for a lot of folks that frequent this forum. Hell, you know where I live and all you have to do is give me a date and Ill give you a place. Should be good for some chuckles and I myself could care less how bad you may think you are, so chill.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 10, 2000.

Ra, you assumed I was talking about physical size when I said Sifting was puny. That doesn't concern me, because not only am I physically big, intellectually I am far superior to any of you trolls. As for the date and place, the date will be "soon", the place, I already know. See ya "soon". :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 11, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

I didn't see that the person going by the name of "hmmm" had posted those links above, and as I also explained once or twice I had not tracked down the threads in the archives. Still, this portion quoted, about wanting the adoption to be as quick as possible, does not specify that the adoption itself must happen before the rollover, and it does specify that there would have to be some checking by the family. There's no indication that it would not be a legal adoption. Were there more threads than these two? (I still haven't re-read them, but will when I get the time.) Does anybody else remember something about a "possible legal adoption later" discussion?

In any case, this does not relate at all to what actually happened. The Olsen family did not illegally adopt these children. They merely took them in for a bit, with the blessing of their family.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 11, 2000.

Hmmm and Consumer, if you put yourself into the mind of a mother and people who genuinely believe that major calamities would happen because of Y2K, it's easy to see that their intentions were good.

That may be, but even after it was pointed out to them that seeking prospective parents on anonymous internet bulletin boards was an unwise and potentially dangerous move, they continued to make the request, on here as well as a few other Y2K forums.

They genuinely had the babie's best interest in mind. Using the internet as the venue for finding suitable parents when viewed in that light makes sense, as it is a speedy way to reach a large number of people that they would consider suitable, i.e., those prepared for y2k, and into the adoption market.

It was also a speedy way to reach people who could be considered dangerous, and no, I'm not talking about any particular person or mindset on TB2000, but people in general on the internet. These are anonymous people on a bulletin board we're talking about here. And they were planning to leave their newborn child with one of them.

Time was a factor as it was close to roll-over. Standard adoption venues, agencies and procedures can be very lenthy.

Beyond the standard beauracracy, I would think there's probably a good reason for their being so lengthy.

As one always on the lookout for the safety of children on the internet, this perticular instance did not outrage me last year, as it seemed clear to me that the prospective parents would have been screened to be suitable ones.

But there was only seven days to perform the screening on prospective parents. And that would only have been if prospective parents were found that very day. If not, then there was even less time to perform the screening. Was this sufficient time to ensure suitable parents for a child? Would you give up your child to someone on a weeks notice? How about a day or two notice?

Still, this portion quoted, about wanting the adoption to be as quick as possible, does not specify that the adoption itself must happen before the rollover,

Sure it does. Right here:

The mother is not in a position to care for the child for any time at all, but wants a GI family to adopt it (so will feel secure about it living thru Y2K).

In order to feel secure about "it" living thru Y2K, the baby would have to be adopted before the rollover. When it was suggested that they simply wait until the rollover and see if such a drastic move would really be necessary, the response was:

If you know anything about Y2K, you have to know that phones and transportation may not work worth a %$# very soon, so waiting is out. An arrangement was made that would take care of everything, but the wonderful background check procedure failed. The whole family would be endangered by keeping it and trying to take care of it now.

As they said, waiting is out. Even if it means waiting a week to see if Y2K is really as bad as they think. They wanted the baby adopted before the rollover. That was the whole point of the urgent message.

and it does specify that there would have to be some checking by the family. There's no indication that it would not be a legal adoption.

and as I mentioned to Chris, any checking done by the family would have to be completed in less than seven days. Does this seem like sufficient time to evaluate the new parents of your child? In addition, seven days does not appear to be enough time to perform a legal adoption.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 11, 2000.

Certainly the Olson's stepped in to prevent what could have been a disatrous situation and for that, they should be commended. Still, there was really no reason for Dennis to scream at everyone on this thread who suggested that the authorities should have been notified. I think using Milne-like "BWAHAHAHAHA" statements as responses was a bit disturbing for someone who just took in a 15 year old girl and her newborn child.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 11, 2000.

BS,

I STILL stand on the fact the NET is not a way to get a child adopted.

Man, I swear, if ANY ONE tried to 'adopt' my grandbaby on the net, I would PAY MEGA BUCKS to prevent it......

My Take IT WAS WRONG.....Period, disagree if you choose, just stating my opinion.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 11, 2000.

consumer, been drinking too much again?

-- White Russians (at dawn@hiccup.hic), April 11, 2000.

Ra, you assumed I was talking about physical size when I said Sifting was puny. That doesn't concern me, because not only am I physically big, intellectually I am far superior to any of you trolls. As for the date and place, the date will be "soon", the place, I already know. See ya "soon". :-)

-- Hawk

Wow Hawk. I hadn't realized this before. I'll try to remember it and maybe even treat you with new respect as soon as you start displaying some of your intellect.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), April 11, 2000.

"As for the date and place, the date will be "soon", the place, I already know. See ya "soon". :-)"

-Hawk

Hawk-

-- Debra (nowwe're@talking.com), April 11, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

hmmm says: As they said, waiting is out. Even if it means waiting a week to see if Y2K is really as bad as they think. They wanted the baby adopted before the rollover. That was the whole point of the urgent message.

I ordered some solar equipment late last year, even though I was convinced that it would never arrive before rollover (turned out I was wrong about that). I thought it could still get to me. In my mind waiting was out, especially waiting to see if I would actually need the equipment.

I believe they wanted the baby into the hands of prospective adoptive parents before the rollover. The adoption could probably proceed afterward, without the birth family's physical presence at the location of the adoptive parents. If things got so screwed up as to shut down the government, the strict legal status of that baby would be the least of anyone's worries.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 11, 2000.

Thanks Hawkey, your posts continue to confirm what we all know about you. BTW, thats Newport Beach, California not Newport, RI. Wouldnt want a high intellect like you mistakenly wandering around the East Coast with your drawers down around your ankles. We are moving into the tourist season so I suggest you call this number to reserve a nice room over looking the ocean (949-645-8600). We would put you up here but the dogs in heat. Late!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 11, 2000.

I believe they wanted the baby into the hands of prospective adoptive parents before the rollover.

Which would still mean only about a week or less to determine the fitness of the prospective parents.

The adoption could probably proceed afterward, without the birth family's physical presence at the location of the adoptive parents.

Actually, one of the conditions they specified seems to indicate otherwise:

-family must be willing to prove is G.I. (answer questions showing understand dangers of Y2K, must live outside of major urban area, may need to have young biological mother see supplies for herself at late stage of adoption arrangements.)

I suppose that the phrase "late stage of adoption arrangements" is open to interpretation, but it seems to indicate to me that they not only hoped to accomplish the adoption before the rollover, but that they planned to be present at the later stages.

If things got so screwed up as to shut down the government, the strict legal status of that baby would be the least of anyone's worries.

That much is true, however the health and safety of the child with prospective parents who were chosen from an anonymous bulletin board and checked out in a week or less would probably be one of the greater of their worries. Or at least it probably should be.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 11, 2000.

Please help me out here dancr. You said:

I ordered some solar equipment late last year, even though I was convinced that it would never arrive before rollover (turned out I was wrong about that). I thought it could still get to me. In my mind waiting was out, especially waiting to see if I would actually need the equipment.

Ive read this statement of yours a few times and it just doesnt make any sense. Also, you were apparently trying to make an analogy with the Dennis/baby adoption story but that escaped me as well. Im eager to have your clarification on this.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 11, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Sifting: What I mean is that some (most?) people believe(d) that Y2K disruptions would most likely take the form of a gradual degradations, with some small possibility for the more dramatic sudden global economic implosion scenario. In this version of what was then the future, some basic services, would continue for a while. The airlines and county courts would open on Monday, January 3rd.

Waiting until January 3rd to decide about solar panels/adoptions/whatever doesn't really make sense if on January 3rd we still won't have a clear picture of what is to come. Also, by waiting we would put ourselves at the end of a VERY long waiting list if things did go seriously south right at the rollover. HTH

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 11, 2000.

Although I was a died in the wool Polly, it is understandable that YOU might have had some concerns (in 1999) about the continuation of services after the rollover. However, to factor this delusional paranoia into the Olson online baby deal doesnt seem too smart. No amount of spin will convince me that this was a good thing or even legal for that matter.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 11, 2000.

Stop Ra, youre killing me. I just had to dial that number you gave Hawk and Ive been convulsing for the last 5 minutes. Too, too funny. It was worth the toll call for sure. Touchi.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 11, 2000.

No, I think you've pretty much covered it. Much of the debate on this thread appeared to center around whether or not the grandmother made a wise move in offering up the baby for adoption on the internet. There was also some obligatory name calling.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 12, 2000.

Dancr>> Sal: "Agency? Or family?" you ask, "Which did the young mother decide against?" Well, both, actually. But the point was that you were complaining that the birth family was not going through "proper channels," which I took to mean that you thought they somehow had a legal obligation to continue in their relationship with the agency.

Glad weve cleared that up.

Dancr>>You ask: "You do not mean to suggest that people can pass babies around, totally out of the sight of child welfare agencies, do you?" Who ever said that there would be an adoption without a government blessing? The family was looking for someone to take their baby in for the rollover. The possibility of a later legal adoption was only that, not a promise.

I dont think so, Dancr. I think the old posts speak for themselves. The words and tone of the posts clearly indicate that a pre-rollover adoption was being sought.

Dancr>>You suggest that one cannot arrange for children to be taken care of without government involvement.

No, youve mistaken my statement. You dont transfer child custody  outside of family members  without government involvement. Youre not going to get into legal trouble if you leave a child with a family friend for a short period when there is no actual family member available, but it appears quite clear to me (and others on this thread) that we were looking at a family who wanted someone to ADOPT that child BEFORE the rollover.

Dancr>>I disagree. Once, when I was sick, and my husband was going to be out of town, I sent my son to live with grandma. Plenty of families run into hard times and make similar informal arrangements with friends and relatives.

Dancr, custodial transfer between family members is not a legal issue. Now, if you can show me that Dennis Olson was related to the young mothers family, then weve got a salient legal point. If not, then your example is irrelevant.

Dancr>>I will not applaud the wisdom of sending children, during an expected famine, to live with a family that has been featured on national news for having a grocery store in their basement. Perhaps they weren't aware of the Olsen Family's celebrity status. While this was probably a huge strategic error, it doesn't seem to me to come anywhere near the illegal zone.

Well, surprise, it does come near the illegal zone. It may have also signed a lease and moved into the zone, too. Thats the point Im trying to argue.

Dancr>>You say, "We have already established that the actions involved in such circumvention were possibly illegal." I disagree. As I explained, there was no circumvention. The way I hear tell of the story the birth mother had the right to approve or to disapprove of the prospective adoptive parents, for whatever reason or for no reason at all. She disapproved. This WAS the process, and it's a very common process today.

No, Dancr. Not the reasons. The _actions._ You seem stuck on the mothers (or whoevers) decision to move out of the public adoption arena as the legal issue. It is not. The legal issue is what the family did after that point. Those actions appear to have constituted a circumvention of the legal adoption process, and may very well have been illegal. You are arguing against a point I did not raise.

Dancr>>How well the prospective adoptive parents would have been able to handle an uneventful rollover proves nothing about how well they would have handled a run on the grocery stores, to say nothing of a global economic collapse.

In any event, Y2K is totally irrelevant. If that family wants to go any further, thats their lookout. I cant see any point in doing so. Y2K concerns do not impact on the law in any way.

Dancr>>The birth mother's criterion was that they be prepared for the possibility of significant disruptions. They were not. Buzzzzz. They lose. Next candidate?

No. The next candidate was not apparently sought in a legal manner. There may have been intent to circumvent the states adoption laws, which is prima facie evidence of child endangerment or neglect in some jurisdictions.

Dancr>>You chided the birth family for not having earlier identified an appropriate family to adopt this baby. Perhaps their Y2K worries intensified toward the end of the year. It was probably not an easy matter to find a family that was both concerned enough about Y2K to prepare, and yet still interested in taking on a baby.

That is legally irrelevant. As I have told you before, one does not circumvent the law simply because of ones Y2K worries. Im sorry the family felt so strongly, but that is not a legal defense.

Dancr>>You say courts can and do make decisions about whether a birth mother in an open adoption has reasonable standards in selecting prospective adoptive parents. Citation, please.

No, Dancr. I was trying to say that courts can and do make decisions about custody transfer, adoption, temporary custody, etc. You assigned a meaning to my statement that I did not intend for it to have. I will say this, however  courts can and will take children into custody when there is evidence that a family intends to circumvent legal adoption procedure. And Family and Child Services agencies can be empowered to act in the courts stead -- even BEFORE the law has been broken -- if the evidence is compelling enough.

Dancr>> You ask me if the baby's family informed the government that they intended to transfer custody to Mr. Olsen. I don't know why you would think that I would have this kind of information, but I do have some comments about your question.

You seemed to know more than you let on. Am I mistaken in that supposition?

Dancr>> Perhaps you're unaware that Mr. Olsen is married.

Why would that matter?

Dancr>>In any case, the arrangement appeared to me to be one family temporarily sending their children to live with this family where they believed they would be well looked after.

Indeed? It appears to me that subsequent posters have proven that was not the case. The reposts appear to clearly indicate that a pre- rollover adoption was sought.

Dancr>> I sincerely don't see why the government would need to be involved in this situation.

Because it is the law, Dancr.

Dancr>> Several people on this thread and on an earlier forum have stated that they thought there should have been some notification of "the authorities." What authorities? Why anybody thinks this is anyone's business other than these two families is beyond me.

Well, thats why we have courts, Dancr. Im sorry you do not agree, but that is irrelevant. Laws can be changed, repealed, etc, but as things stand, the law impinges considerably into this arrangement.

Dancr>> You say that "if agencies can't place a child according to a family's wishes, they'll look for qualified family that can provide care and support for the child." Actually, when the birth mother retains a final right of approval over any prospective adoptive family, she ultimately has the power to decide whether the baby is adopted at all.

Not always. Family law is not my strong point (it gets a little too contentious in family court for my taste), but I understand that if the mother/mothers family can no longer care for the child, the court can place the child in foster care over the mothers/mothers familys objections. I do not know for certain if an adoption could be executed under such circumstances; it may be necessary for this child to first be declared a ward of the state before that could happen. In any event, Dancr, if the young mother in question could no longer care for her child, then you are in error.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 12, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Sal, pick a state, any stat,e and tell us which law, exactly, you think the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family for the rollover. Provide citation.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 14, 2000.

Sal, dont waste anymore of your valuable time debating with Tracie (dancr). This woman is the queen of alternative lifestyles and has her own set of guidelines that do not mesh with mainstream society. She obviously considers herself to be different and would like the rest of us to adapt to her way of thinking. I honor her for the dedication but disagree none the less.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 14, 2000.

Sal, pick a state, any stat,e and tell us which law, exactly, you think the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family for the rollover.

Sal never said that sending the children to live with the Olson family broke the law. He was referring to offering up the infant for adoption to an anonymous forum on the Internet as possibly being illegal.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 14, 2000.

Dancr, here's a fourteen-minute answer for you. Any more time than that, and I start to charge you for legal services rendered. :)

All readers, please be advised that the following does not constitute legal advice, and that I do not necessarily represent myself to be admitted to the bar in your state. For legal advice, consult an accredited attorney in your local area.

Dancr, my home state (Georgia) takes a very dim view of people who jerk children around, regardless of their intent to do whats best for the child. For example, GA requires licensure of child-care facilities (UP GA 16-12-1.1). Background checks of potential child- care employees are also encouraged IAW the same section. Child-care providers are encouraged to do this, as it is unlawful to knowingly employ certain felons (or individuals who entered a nolo contendere plea in certain felony cases) as child-care staffers. The reason for this, rather clearly stated in the language, is because the state is granting licensed child-care facilities the right to assume temporary custody of children. Note that we must have both the parents AND the states permission in Georgia to drop kids off at a day care facility. Wonder if the Olsons clued their local officials in to what they were doing?

You may find GA 15-11-6-a very chilling; I simply find it overly broad and poorly written. In any event:

15-11-6. (a) The court is vested with jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the person or property of any child and with jurisdiction over proceedings involving any child whose custody is the subject of controversy. Any such appointment shall be made pursuant to the same requirements of notice and hearing as are provided for appointments of guardians of the persons and properties of minors by the judge of the probate court.

Notice that "controversy" word? If tightly interpreted, this applies to Mr. Olsons situation. There was certainly controversy involved here.

GA 19-7-4 provides for the state to take custody of children in destitute, immoral or lewd circumstances. Im not suggesting that either Dennis or the mother were providing such circumstances, but at least one state  Georgia  provides for the state to assume custody of children, over the parents wishes, in certain circumstances. Your mileage may vary.

GA 19-7-22 and 19-7-25 provide that the father of the child can come forward and legitimize the child, thereby nullifying the mothers (or grandparents) sole custody rights. Do we know anything about the infants father? We get into a completely different kettle of fish if the infants family KNOWS who the father is, yet conceals the infants existence from the father. In other words, a father cant be considered to have relinquished his custody rights unless and until he knows of his childs existence. In Georgia, fathers (even illegitimate ones) are entitled to notice of their childs adoption, with some exceptions.

Anyone wishing to become the legal guardian of a child in Georgia is required to bring legal action. GA 19-9-22 is very clear on that. Failing that, a putative guardian would only be acting in loco parentis, which is a very, very gray legal area. In Mr. Olsons case, his rights would have been very sharply curtailed if this law applied in his home state. A similar law may be in effect there; I simply dont know.

Georgias Department of Human Resources is granted broad powers in dealing with child welfare and child custody cases. This section also rather strongly implies that GDHR is empowered to investigate, license and supervise ALL child-care and child-placing facilities in the state. This rather strongly indicates that ALL adoptions in Georgia, whether private or public, are performed at the courts sufferance. See GA 49-5-8 for details.

GA 49-5-9 provides for Georgia law enforcement officials to assist GDHR officials in their duties.

The simple fact of the matter is that a big legal mess has happened here. Further, the only justification I've heard so far is "these people were worried about Y2K." Well, their reasons are their own, but the family COULD have gotten a decent attorney who would accept delayed payment or payments over time (yes, many attorneys do that), and who would expedite a temporary custody transfer through the courts to the Olsons.

You seem to think that I have something against the Olsons; I do not. I do, however, have something against people who play fast-and- loose with the law, and then claim later to have "had a good reason" to break the law.

Mr. Olson and the infant's family knowingly made their own legal bed. Now let them lay in it.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 15, 2000.

Sal:

Just for laughs read: Song of the South

Not what I know, but a lot of people see it that way.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 15, 2000.

Dancr, before I forget, we have this gem below. Essentially, GA 19-8- 24 makes it illegal for any individual or group to perform an adoption -- or even to offer to arrange an adoption -- unless that individual or group is certified to do so by the state. "Department" in this case refers to the Department of Human Resources (under which Family and Child Services falls in GA).

It seems apparent to me that the few exclusions in this law (specifically c.1.b. below) do _not_ apply in this case, given the history we've seen online.

What this amounts to is simple -- under Georgia law, it is illegal to offer up a child for adoption unless you are specifically authorized to do so by the state. Wonder if Mr. Olson and/or the infant's family are covered by a similar law? More of a legal mess.

19-8-24. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, organization, corporation, hospital, or association of any kind whatsoever which has not been established as a child-placing agency by the department to: (1) Advertise, whether in a periodical, by television, by radio, or by any other public medium or by any private means, including letters, circulars, handbills, and oral statements, that the person, organization, corporation, hospital, or association will adopt children or will arrange for or cause children to be adopted or placed for adoption; or (2) Directly or indirectly hold out inducements to parents to part with their children. As used in this subsection, "inducements" shall include any financial assistance, either direct or indirect, from whatever source, except payment or reimbursement of the medical expenses directly related to the mother's pregnancy and hospitalization for the birth of the child and medical care for the child. (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the discretion of the court. (c)(1) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply to communication by private means, including only written letters or oral statements, by an individual seeking to: (A) Adopt a child or children; or (B) Place that individual's child or children for adoption, whether the communication occurs before or after the birth of such child or children. (2) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply to any communication described in paragraph (1) of this subsection which contains any attorney's name, address, telephone number, or any combination of such information and which requests any attorney named in such communication to be contacted to facilitate the carrying out of the purpose, as described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, of the individual making such personal communication.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 15, 2000.

And now, for the format-impaired . . . :)

19-8-24.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, organization, corporation, hospital, or association of any kind whatsoever which has not been established as a child-placing agency by the department to:

(1) Advertise, whether in a periodical, by television, by radio, or by any other public medium or by any private means, including letters, circulars, handbills, and oral statements, that the person, organization, corporation, hospital, or association will adopt children or will arrange for or cause children to be adopted or placed for adoption; or

(2) Directly or indirectly hold out inducements to parents to part with their children. As used in this subsection, "inducements" shall include any financial assistance, either direct or indirect, from whatever source, except payment or reimbursement of the medical expenses directly related to the mother's pregnancy and hospitalization for the birth of the child and medical care for the child.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the discretion of the court.

(c) (1) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply to communication by private means, including only written letters or oral statements, by an individual seeking to:

(A) Adopt a child or children; or

(B) Place that individual's child or children for adoption, whether the communication occurs before or after the birth of such child or children.

(2) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply to any communication described in paragraph (1) of this subsection which contains any attorney's name, address, telephone number, or any combination of such information and which requests any attorney named in such communication to be contacted to facilitate the carrying out of the purpose, as described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, of the individual making such personal communication.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 15, 2000.

Y2K Danc'r...

DISMISSED!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 15, 2000.

Everyone keeps oing on & on about the legality of my daughter and newborn grandson stayin with the Olson's over rollover as well as the

-- baby's Grandma (nana46@spinfinder.com), April 17, 2000.

Everyone keeps going on & on about the legality of my daughter and newborn grandson staying with the Olson's over rollover as well as the much discussed "adoption" which I DID NOT put on the forum. My husband started that thread when the couple that my daughter has originally selected to take the baby (thru a licensed agency) did not prove acceptable to HER standards of what she wanted. He was lookin for someone to "adopt" in the dictionary sense a baby that would not have survived the primitive situation we were in at the time. He was concerned that the baby might not survive rollover. SHE made the decision not to place the baby with the couple. I supported her as SHE was the one who has to live with that decision. They HAD NOT prepared AT ALL for Y2K and my daughter was very cognizant of the possibilities and wanted above all things for the baby to be safe if there were widespread disruptions (as there COULD have been). I never relinquished custody of my daughter for a single moment before or after the baby's birth and I am now the legal guardian of the baby. My daughter, the baby & I stayed at the Olson's for several weeks until through the kindness of various guardian angels we met thru the internet we were able to get set up to be able to take care of the baby. Because my daughter had originally planned to put the baby up for adoption we were totally unprepared to take care of him at that time and our place for rollover was totally unsuitable - too cold- for a newborn. Those situations have changed. The responses we received thru the internet made us see that there are many people in many different situations that desperately want children. However, my daughter will not be able to help them as she plans to keep her child and with our help go back to school, attend college and raise this beautiful miracle with her family. There are so many people out there looking to make everything ugly and hateful. Dennis & his wife made us welcome in their home and helped us keep our family together. Whatever his faults, he came through for us when we needed help without any demand for recompense. If things had gotten really bad he and his family would have been welcomed in our home in a very remote area where none of the hatemongers could have found him or us. My daughter & her baby have been back with our family for several months now and there are no plans for that to change unless she goes to visit family for the short term. For those of you, you know who you are, so determined to condemn all those involved- Shame on You!! There will always be those who concentrate on the negative and ignore the positive. No one made any attempt to do anything illegal. There was never a question of selling ANY baby. There was never a changeover of the custody of either my daughter or my grandson as I never relinquished custody at ANY TIME. There was a concerted effort on the part of various individuals to try to keep a newborn baby safe and warm through what could a been a very dangerous situation. I thank God every day for the wonderful people who came through for us in that so stressful time. We were fortunate to have several guardian angels who, without any thought of gain for themselves, sent items which enabled my daughter to take care of her son. By the way, she is a very good mother, very conscientious and protective of her son. She takes exceptional care of him (better than many adult women I have seen over the years). I want to publicly thank all of those who sent items and funds to purchase items for the baby. God will reward you for you kindness to strangers. I can never thank you enough for your help.

-- baby's Grandma (nana46@spinfinder.com), April 17, 2000.

Everyone keeps going on & on about the legality of my daughter and newborn grandson staying with the Olson's over rollover as well as the much discussed "adoption" which I DID NOT put on the forum. My husband started that thread when the couple that my daughter has originally selected to take the baby (thru a licensed agency) did not prove acceptable to HER standards of what she wanted. He was lookin for someone to "adopt" in the dictionary sense a baby that would not have survived the primitive situation we were in at the time. He was concerned that the baby might not survive rollover. SHE made the decision not to place the baby with the couple. I supported her as SHE was the one who has to live with that decision. They HAD NOT prepared AT ALL for Y2K and my daughter was very cognizant of the possibilities and wanted above all things for the baby to be safe if there were widespread disruptions (as there COULD have been). I never relinquished custody of my daughter for a single moment before or after the baby's birth and I am now the legal guardian of the baby. My daughter, the baby & I stayed at the Olson's for several weeks until through the kindness of various guardian angels we met thru the internet we were able to get set up to be able to take care of the baby. Because my daughter had originally planned to put the baby up for adoption we were totally unprepared to take care of him at that time and our place for rollover was totally unsuitable - too cold- for a newborn. Those situations have changed. The responses we received thru the internet made us see that there are many people in many different situations that desperately want children. However, my daughter will not be able to help them as she plans to keep her child and with our help go back to school, attend college and raise this beautiful miracle with her family. There are so many people out there looking to make everything ugly and hateful. Dennis & his wife made us welcome in their home and helped us keep our family together. Whatever his faults, he came through for us when we needed help without any demand for recompense. If things had gotten really bad he and his family would have been welcomed in our home in a very remote area where none of the hatemongers could have found him or us. My daughter & her baby have been back with our family for several months now and there are no plans for that to change unless she goes to visit family for the short term. For those of you, you know who you are, so determined to condemn all those involved- Shame on You!! There will always be those who concentrate on the negative and ignore the positive. No one made any attempt to do anything illegal. There was never a question of selling ANY baby. There was never a changeover of the custody of either my daughter or my grandson as I never relinquished custody at ANY TIME. There was a concerted effort on the part of various individuals to try to keep a newborn baby safe and warm through what could a been a very dangerous situation. I thank God every day for the wonderful people who came through for us in that so stressful time. We were fortunate to have several guardian angels who, without any thought of gain for themselves, sent items which enabled my daughter to take care of her son. By the way, she is a very good mother, very conscientious and protective of her son. She takes exceptional care of him (better than many adult women I have seen over the years). I want to publicly thank all of those who sent items and funds to purchase items for the baby. God will reward you for you kindness to strangers. I can never thank you enough for your help. So please lay off Dennis and lay off my family. No one did anything illegal or immoral.

-- baby's Grandma (nana46@spinfinder.com), April 17, 2000.

TROLL ALERT! There are several inconsistancies between this post and the original thread.

"Everyone keeps going on & on about the legality of my daughter and newborn grandson staying with the Olson's over rollover as well as the much discussed "adoption" which I DID NOT put on the forum"

Yes you did. You identified yourself in a couple of posts, and even talked about the difficulty you'd had breastfeeding.

"My daughter, the baby & I stayed at the Olson's for several weeks until through the kindness of various guardian angels we met thru the internet we were able to get set up to be able to take care of the baby."

Untrue. You were never mentioned in the newspaper article regarding your "daughter" and "grandson". You didn't appear in any of the TV show, though they did. This is also contrary to everything Dennis said about this. "So please lay off Dennis and lay off my family. No one did anything illegal or immoral."

If you REALLY wanted this issue to die, you wouldn't have posted this at all. This thread was inactive for how many days?

-- Trollspotter (trollspotter@trollspotting.fnord), April 17, 2000.

Sal, it is also illegal for you to j-walk or go even 1 mile over the speed limit. Which of these laws have YOU broken recently?

And since when were TB200'ers happy about government-imposed laws regarding family matters? Double standard? I think so.

People make mistakes. People learn from mistakes. Quit crucifying these good people and leave them alone!

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 17, 2000.

Gee, it's always so much fun to joust with people who don't like attorneys. Lawyers certainly get their fair share of vitriol, but when someone pulls out the "let he who is without misdemeanor cast the first lawsuit" argument, I just have to laugh.

"Sal, it is also illegal for you to j-walk or go even 1 mile over the speed limit. Which of these laws have YOU broken recently?"

My behavior is not at issue here, Cin, no matter how much you might like for it to be. If you are trying to suggest "everybody does it" or "this law is so rarely enforced, why pick on us" as a defense, then all I have to say to you is "try telling that to a judge." If you think those defenses will work, then you've been watching too many courtroom dramas on TV.

"And since when were TB200'ers happy about government-imposed laws regarding family matters? Double standard? I think so."

Oh, I see you have already lumped me in with a group. Don't think so. I pointed out a chain of events that was possibly illegal, and included my legal reasoning. Nothing more. If you think that suggests something about my character or my beliefs, you're incorrect. That's simply your assessment, Counselor.

"People make mistakes."

Ah, you agree that mistakes were made here? Excellent, I do too. Besides, I know that people make mistakes. That's why there are attorneys.

"People learn from mistakes."

I wonder if the people in question have learned from their mistakes. Are you prepared to speak for them?

"Quit crucifying these good people and leave them alone!"

As I have not spoken directly *to* any of the people involved, you're more than a little out of line in telling me to leave them alone. I am making public comments on a public message board. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but I shall continue to comment where and when I see fit. If you find this particular thread too painful to read, then perhaps it would be better if you simply did not read it.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 18, 2000.

"Everyone keeps going on & on about the legality of my daughter and newborn grandson staying with the Olson's over rollover as well as the much discussed "adoption" which I DID NOT put on the forum."

I don't know who you are, but someone DID solicit for an adoption on this thread. If you really are the grandmother, and if you were in Georgia, you would be telling it to a judge.

"My husband started that thread when the couple that my daughter has originally selected to take the baby (thru a licensed agency) did not prove acceptable to HER standards of what she wanted."

That's not the legal issue. Go back and re-read.

"He was lookin for someone to "adopt" in the dictionary sense a baby that would not have survived the primitive situation we were in at the time."

Tell it to the judge, not the board.

"He was concerned that the baby might not survive rollover. SHE made the decision not to place the baby with the couple. I supported her as SHE was the one who has to live with that decision.

The choice not to go with the original family is not the legal issue. Keep your eye on the ball here. Go back and reread.

"They HAD NOT prepared AT ALL for Y2K and my daughter was very cognizant of the possibilities and wanted above all things for the baby to be safe if there were widespread disruptions (as there COULD have been)."

Irrelevant. Y2K does not enter into the legal equation.

"I never relinquished custody of my daughter for a single moment before or after the baby's birth"

Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. That's for a judge to decide.

"and I am now the legal guardian of the baby."

You _were_ the legal guardian of the mother AND child before this whole mess got started. Don't know what your status is now.

"There are so many people out there looking to make everything ugly and hateful."

Yes, those ugly, hateful attorneys.

"Dennis & his wife made us welcome in their home and helped us keep our family together. Whatever his faults, he came through for us when we needed help without any demand for recompense."

That's not the issue. Go back and reread.

"If things had gotten really bad he and his family would have been welcomed in our home in a very remote area where none of the hatemongers could have found him or us."

Well, maybe, and maybe not. The authorities in some states are now locating folks through their Internet activities. Don't assume that a screen name protects you from the law.

"For those of you, you know who you are, so determined to condemn all those involved- Shame on You!!"

And shame on YOU for attempting to arrange a blind adoption through the Internet.

"There will always be those who concentrate on the negative and ignore the positive."

There will always be those who attempt to cover up the illegal and attempt to make it look legal.

"No one made any attempt to do anything illegal."

That's for a court to decide.

"There was never a question of selling ANY baby."

No one suggested there was. So why do you bring that up?

"There was never a changeover of the custody of either my daughter or my grandson as I never relinquished custody at ANY TIME."

Well, now that depends on the laws of your home state and the laws of Mr. Olson's home state. Have you consulted some attorneys, or are you just making noises?

"There was a concerted effort on the part of various individuals to try to keep a newborn baby safe and warm through what could a been a very dangerous situation."

Through what wasn't a dangerous situation at all. Y2K does not enter into the legal equation.

"I thank God every day for the wonderful people who came through for us in that so stressful time. We were fortunate to have several guardian angels who, without any thought of gain for themselves, sent items which enabled my daughter to take care of her son."

Glad to hear that.

"By the way, she is a very good mother, very conscientious and protective of her son. She takes exceptional care of him (better than many adult women I have seen over the years). I want to publicly thank all of those who sent items and funds to purchase items for the baby. God will reward you for you kindness to strangers. I can never thank you enough for your help."

Noted. Good show to all who pitched in to help with material/monetary assistance.

"So please lay off Dennis and lay off my family."

If you don't like the comments, then perhaps you should not read the thread. Folks are well within their rights here to comment on this matter.

"No one did anything illegal or immoral."

Maybe, maybe not. I think there are enough viable questions here to bring the matter to court. Of course, FCS in either Mr Olson's or the mother's home state will have to see to that. But I might just file an amicus brief, if I hear that the matter goes forward.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 18, 2000.

The argument that "nothing bad happened so it was the right thing to do" is irrelevant. This could have turned out much differently if the prospective "ultra=prepper" was a pedophile or mentally unstable in another way.

The state could have easily arranged for a safe place for the child, such as temporary foster care; I am about to apply to be a foster parent.

You state that she made the decision by herself; 15 year olds in any state do not have the legal authority to make such decisions.

Just my two cents worth since I had not been in on this thread. You go, Sal.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 18, 2000.

Sal, why don't you take this one apart word by word...

YOU NEED TO GET A LIFE!

And I'm the one who is out of line? sheesh, no wonder people can't stand lawyers. Sal, you give them a bad rap. The way you take every line apart is so grrrr annoying.

This is over and done with. Avec hindsight, I seriousy doubt things would go this way again. Yes, people learn. The baby is healthy and safe, everyone is ok. Not that that is your real concern Sal. I can see you enjoy tooting your horn.

I know it's cliche, but heck Sal, you need a fricken life.

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 18, 2000.

Actually, for some people, this is not "over and done with" which is why the conversation still continues. Just as with the Y2K rollover, people still like to analyze it. If you're not interested in this topic, Cin, that's fine, but nobody's making you read it.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 18, 2000.

Excuse me hmmm...this is not analyzing that these people are doing. They are judging, and most mercilessly. I do believe Social Services were called and they investigated Dennis and his family. Have you any idea how humiliating and scary that is? Dennis also received death threats. I think that is taking it a bit too far.

This is a fecking witch hunt and burning at the stake. That's what it is. Shame on you.

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 18, 2000.

Excuse me hmmm...this is not analyzing that these people are doing.

Yes it is.

They are judging, and most mercilessly.

They have opinions about the matter in which an attempt was made to give away a baby over the internet. Some people believe that this was potentially illegal and could have been harmful to the child.

I do believe Social Services were called and they investigated Dennis and his family.

Someone was apparently concerned about the child, what with the attempt to give him away over the internet and all. Since the child was currently at Dennis' home, that would be the most logical place to determine the child's well-being.

Have you any idea how humiliating and scary that is?

I imagine it's probably not as humiliating and scary as it would have been explaining to officials why one tried to give away one's child in an anonymous internet bulletin board.

Dennis also received death threats. I think that is taking it a bit too far.

Please point to any comment in this thread that supported death threats against Dennis. I can't seem to find any.

This is a fecking witch hunt and burning at the stake.

This is nothing of the kind. An attempt was made to give away a baby over the internet. That has some people upset. Perhaps it doesn't bother you. Perhaps it should.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 18, 2000.

THEYRE COMING screamed the overweight toad,

His guns did he frantically load,

I can hear em, theyre at the front door,

He squealed as his guns they did roar,

The porch turned red,

The mailman was dead,

That will teach them to drive up my road!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 18, 2000.

Hmmm/Sal (yes, I think you are the same person),

I never realized just how annoying you could be....until now.

btw, I did see the death threats and they were sick and scary.

I never said the adoption thing wasn't wrong. Yes, I think it was careless and hasty, though perhaps well-intended. What I'm saying is that you should get past it now. Go outside and mow your lawn or something.

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 19, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Sal, hello. Thank you for your response. I'm impressed, and must admit that I was not expecting an answer, because my impression is that you are not a lawyer and would not go to the trouble of tracking down a citation if you didn't have the material handy. That said, however, I'm not entirely satisfied that you've identified any law that the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family. I will address them each in turn. Note that I am not looking up the exact wordings of these laws, but am relying on your descriptions of them.

The Olsen family was not running a day care service. They offered their hospitality, gratis. Are you suggesting that families must become certified daycare providers before they may allow young children to be a guest in their home? You know better than this. This does not qualify as an example of any law that the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family. [TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF]

No kidding about GA15-11-6 being poorly written, as to the court being able to appoint a guardian for "any child whose custody is the subject of controversy". TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF

I will skip discussion of GA19-7-4, since you state that you do not suggest that it would apply to this case.

You talk about how the birth father might come forward to claim the baby and prevent a future adoption. A law providing that a father may come forward  TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF.

GA19-9-22, which requires a legal action to establish a change of guardianship, does not apply to this situation since there was no change of guardianship. TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF

GA49-5-8 relates to adoptions, not to just going to live with somebody. TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF

All you say about GA49-5-9 is that it provides for Georgia law enforcement officials to assist GDHR officials in their duties. TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF

GA19-8- 24 relates mainly to adoption agents, and not to the parent(s). That code specifically states that it does not apply to private communications by individuals who are seeking to have their own child adopted, or to parents who name a lawyer who will be handling their case. There may be some disagreement as to what constitutes a private communication. I do not consider the old TB2K board to have been private since anyone could read it, but I can see where someone might argue that it was. In any case, though, TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF.

You suggest that the birth family should have gotten a decent attorney (Uh, isn't that an oxymoron?). This may be true, although this seems to me to be another one of those lawyer full employment laws. If you are an attorney, I understand that you may be upset that anyone exists who is not paying attorneys every time they turn around. TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF

Neither the Olsen family, nor the birth family ever claimed that they had broken any law, according to my reading of these three threads of which I'm aware. Your stating that they have claimed that they "had a good reason" (your quote of whom???) "to break the law" (my quote of you), is a misrepresentation of their position, unless you have information that does not appear here.

I have read your two letters most carefully looking for any other examples you may have provided to which I have may have failed to react. In summary, in my opinion, you have not stated a single law that the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family. Try as you might, (to the point of claiming that the Olsen home was a day care center, even), you could not find any. This is not to say that a skilled attorney could not eventually turn up some obscure law with which to beat them over the head. As most of us are aware, any one of us could be found to be violating some obscure law at any given moment.

In my opinion, you were calling for these two families to be harassed. I recognize that the law in most states provides that there shall be no penalty against people who make knowingly false accusations of child abuse, in order to encourage more true reports. That does not absolve you or the people who actually did make calls to Child Protective Services (or whatever it is called in the applicable states) of the bad karma for what you have done.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 19, 2000.

Hmmm/Sal (yes, I think you are the same person),

Apparently, you've learned nothing from all the "cin is Laura!" posts. Just because two people disagree with you does not mean they are the same person. But I guess you will believe what you want to believe, Laura,err, I mean cin. LOL

I never realized just how annoying you could be....until now.

That's probably because you don't usually have a tendency to tell people to stop talking about a topic that they are interested in. You'll probably find that people can become very annoying when you post on a thread telling people to basically "shut up!" when they're clearly interested in continuing the conversation.

btw, I did see the death threats and they were sick and scary.

What I was asking for was evidence that anyone here supported these death threats. So far, you have not provided any.

I never said the adoption thing wasn't wrong. Yes, I think it was careless and hasty, though perhaps well-intended. What I'm saying is that you should get past it now. Go outside and mow your lawn or something.

As I said, some people still choose to analyze this situation, just as they choose to analyze the Y2K rollover. Clearly you think this is "beating a dead horse" and I can certainly understand why you would think that. Still, people are free to discuss it, and if it bothers you, then perhaps you should not be reading this thread.

As for Dancr's point:

That said, however, I'm not entirely satisfied that you've identified any law that the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family.

As I said, I believe at least part of the issue had nothing at all to do with sending the children to live with the Olsen family, but rather the act of trying to give away a baby via an anonymous forum on the internet (TTGAABVAAFOTI).

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 19, 2000.

Dancr-

I'm not a lawyer, but this is so startlingly clear I can't believe you're not being intentionally obtuse. By receiving someone else's minor child and infant grandson for an indeterminate amount of time, the Olsons' became defacto child care workers. By sending their minor child and infant grandson to live with the Olsons, the grandparents surrendered effective custody. As the Olsons did not have any type of certification or

If you send your child to spend the night with your parents (the child's grandparents), there is no problem. However, if you send your child to live with your grandparents for an indeterminate amount of time, you and your child and your grandparents will be subject to some sort of state oversight, usually a visit. I know this because as a kid, I was sent to stay with my grandparents in another city whild my mother recovered from cancer. We had a couple of interviews and my grandparents had some forms to fill out, but it was no problem at all.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 19, 2000.

"Sal, why don't you take this one apart word by word... YOU NEED TO GET A LIFE!"

Cin, I'm not here for you to like me. If you have some objection to my legal reasoning, then by all means, please, bring it up. If your objection is that you don't like lawyers, and by extension you don't like me, well, then, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

"And I'm the one who is out of line? sheesh, no wonder people can't stand lawyers. Sal, you give them a bad rap. The way you take every line apart is so grrrr annoying."

Well, that's your opinion, Counselor. You're welcome to it.

"This is over and done with. Avec hindsight, I seriousy doubt things would go this way again. Yes, people learn. The baby is healthy and safe, everyone is ok."

Good. However, regardless of hindsight, the law is the law. Perhaps, had the infant's family and the Olson family known the law ahead of time, they might have proceeded differently. Maybe they did consult with an attorney before making any moves; we simply don't know. But there are enough questions raised here to get the matter before a judge, had this happened in my home state. Had all this happened in Georgia, they'd be telling the matter to a judge.

"Not that that is your real concern Sal. I can see you enjoy tooting your horn."

Well, that's your opinion, Counselor. You're welcome to it.

"I know it's cliche, but heck Sal, you need a fricken life."

Well, that's your opinion, Counselor. You're welcome to it.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 19, 2000.

Dancr, I'm afraid I won't have the time to give my reply to you the time and attention it deserves today. Kindly bear with me, and I'll get back to you on Friday or over the weekend. For now . . .

"Sal, hello."

How do, Ma'am.

"Thank you for your response."

You're welcome. :)

"I'm impressed, and must admit that I was not expecting an answer, because my impression is that you are not a lawyer and would not go to the trouble of tracking down a citation if you didn't have the material handy."

Thank you. I think. :)

"That said, however, I'm not entirely satisfied that you've identified any law that the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family."

The issue before us (as I understand it) is a custody matter, and whether or not sending children across state lines to live with a stranger constitutes an illegal custody transfer. Is that your interpretation of the matter, as well? Let's see if we can agree on our basis for disagreement. Otherwise, if we differ on the matter before us, then we're just going to go in circles.

"I will address them each in turn. Note that I am not looking up the exact wordings of these laws, but am relying on your descriptions of them."

Ah. I think I see the issue. When I return, I shall illustrate the legal reasoning behind the *string* of citations with which I provided you, and shall explain how those citations, taken as a body, address your concerns. I obviously erred in advancing my reasoning to you as I would a judge; I shall back up, elucidate and explain.

Until then, Dancr, try looking at the citations as a *body,* and not as disparate *pieces.* That might help.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 19, 2000.

Oh my gawd! It's the annoy boys. You must be brothers, if you are not one and the same. I'll bet you get every case dismissed, simply because they want you to stop talking and repeating the same phrase: "That's your opinion counselor, and you're welcome to it". Argh!

Ok, you win...i'm out of here. Just a little something to think about: If you think the families involved are enjoying this debate and analyzation, you're loony.

Ciao.=oP

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 19, 2000.

If you think the families involved are enjoying this debate and analyzation, you're loony.

If you think the families involved are even reading this debate and analyzation, you're loony.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 19, 2000.

What is TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF ???

-- Inquiring Minds (want@to.know), April 19, 2000.

If you think "analyzation" is actually a word, you're crazy.

It's analysis. Sorry, I couldn't take it any longer!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 19, 2000.

Shes dancr, shes Tracie, shes got her own site,

Please visit and see how shes always so right.

Her kids are to never be seen at a school,

She says Im the teacher and nobodys fool.

As regards Dennis Olson she claims to be sure,

The baby adoption intentions were pure.

Poor Sal he is trying to use common sense,

Forget it my man for this cow is just dense.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 19, 2000.

Yeah? Try ANALITY

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 19, 2000.

p.s.

an*a*ly*za*tion (noun)

First appeared 1742

: ANALYSIS

(try your local dictionary) p.s.s...How DOES foot taste?

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 19, 2000.

Wow cin, I had no idea you were into that sort of thing! While I am flattered, I must say that I'm a happily engaged man, and so I can't take you up on your offer. Also, this is ostensibly a family board, so please try to keep it clean, okay?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 19, 2000.

Which dictionary did you get that word from, Cin? All of mine lack that word. Citation, please.

-- English Professor (englishprof@yahoo.net), April 19, 2000.

Merriam Webster

Online Dictionary

And there are others, take your pick.

p.s....Tarzan, you really find it impossible to admit that you're wrong, eh?

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 19, 2000.

English Prof-

My Harcourt Brace has it listed as anachronistic. To translate for cin, this means that the word is no longer used. It would have been correct in the 18th century, but isn't in common usage. Sort of like saying "shoppe" when you mean "shop".

It's interesting to note that cin used a medical dictionary rather than a standard English dictionary. I also doubt that she knew analyzation was actually a word, in common usage or not. I think she used the wrong word, then plugged it into a search engine to double check. Turns out she was technically correct. Go fig.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 19, 2000.

From: Learning, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Inquiring Minds, at the beginning of the essay I tried to show that I was using TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF as an abreviation for "This does not qualify as an example of any law that the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family." It seemed to me that it would not be enough to merely reply with that phrase one time, but that I needed to point the phrase at each claim in turn.

Ra parodies me: She says "I'm the teacher and nobody's fool. At the risk of coming off a BIT defensive, I'd like to take this moment to make a small point about unschooling means to us. I don't want to drag the conversation off topic, so I'll be brief (yeah, right, sure).

I don't consider myself to be "the" teacher (search that thread on the string "Dancr"). We don't even have "lessons," except in the sense of the occasional post-mortum "Well, I guess that oughta be a lesson for ya..." when something goes very wrong.

I don't think it's healthy for kid's intellectual development to be presented with pre-digested thoughts or to be spoonfed their "learning" in bite sized pieces. It's a good thing for a role model to be a genuine fool sometimes. One of the most important things we have to learn is how to find our own way and make course corrections.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), April 19, 2000.

Gawd Tarzan, I pity you.

Did you try the Merriam Websters?. It's also in the AOL dictionary. It is in several CURRENT dictionaries. How sad you can't admit when you're wrong. I know I can.

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 19, 2000.

"I'm not a lawyer, but this is so startlingly clear I can't believe you're not being intentionally obtuse. By receiving someone else's minor child and infant grandson for an indeterminate amount of time, the Olsons' became defacto child care workers. By sending their minor child and infant grandson to live with the Olsons, the grandparents surrendered effective custody. As the Olsons did not have any type of certification or..."

Tarzan, please back up this statement with some facts/data. On this one particular point, I agree with Dancr that the Olsen family did not need any state certification to take in the baby as a guest, for no fee. A Child Care Center, by definition is a business aiming at making a profit and/or provide profitable jobs.

In addition, Child Care Centers and Child Care Workers only provide their services for part of the day, it is not a live-in situation. Taking in a baby and a mother as guests for an extended period of time does not require licensing. If it did, there'd be a whole slew of legal nightmares for anyone wanting to host kids of friends, or sleep-overs with friends.

IMO, this particular argument detracts from the real issue; wether the baby was put up for adoption over the internet, attempting to bypass adoption laws.

-- Ann A. Lyse (@ .), April 19, 2000.

Dancr,

On the thread that you linked to you said: "My eight-year-old has never been to school. We've been homeschooling him for thirteen years, i.e. since well before he was born.

How exactly do you homeschool sperm?

And I'll assume that the egg got only one month of pre-fertilization education, while somehow the sperm received roughly five years of homeschooling before being sent on it's merry journey to join the egg. That is some trick, I thought I had heard it all. I hope these questions are not out of line, but I have this vision of your husband with stereo earphones on his nut-sac, and a tape of "Learn to speak Italian" in the tape player.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 19, 2000.

"And I'll assume that the egg got only one month of pre-fertilization education, while somehow the sperm received roughly five years of homeschooling before being sent on it's merry journey to join the egg. That is some trick, I thought I had heard it all. I hope these questions are not out of line, but I have this vision of your husband with stereo earphones on his nut-sac, and a tape of "Learn to speak Italian" in the tape player."

You have it backwards, Uncle. The egg (ova) is already in the female's ovaries at birth, losing one ova a month starting at puberty, while the sperm is being produced daily in the scrotum.

I imagine what Dancr meant was that she learned about homeschooling well before she started with her 8 year old.

-- Ann A. Lyze (@ .), April 19, 2000.

Uncle D, please stop, youre killin me dude,

Dancr and her timelines are making me brood.

She claims to have taught,

Not a kid, but a thought,

No mean trick while chewing a lude!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 19, 2000.

WHILE CHEWING A LUDE?????

Now Ra, your age is showing.

ROFLMAO

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 21, 2000.

Youre right dear consumer and further more,

You too do remember the products of Rohr.

Now tell me this dear,

Just for all of us here,

Whens the last time YOU chewed on a 704?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 21, 2000.

Ra,

RHOFLMAO. Damn!!!! lemme think, IF i still have nuff brain cells. lol....uh, maybe late 80's...does that sound right Ra?

Still LMAO....thanks i needed the laugh.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 21, 2000.

BTW,

My dear Ra,

that is 714.

you know what I mean

the 80's I think

and here is a wink.....(wink****)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 21, 2000.

Cin>>"Oh my gawd! It's the annoy boys."

Well, that's your opinion, Counselor, and you're certainly welcome to it. :)

Cin>>"You must be brothers, if you are not one and the same."

I've never met, e-mailed or spoken to or with Ra. I have no idea who he/she/it/they is/are.

Cin>>"I'll bet you get every case dismissed, simply because they want you to stop talking and repeating the same phrase: "That's your opinion counselor, and you're welcome to it". Argh!

No, not at all. Usually the opposing counsel can keep their eyes on the ball and leave their opinions out of the matter at hand. Plus, they also don't make wild, unsupported accusations about "crucifixion" and the like. On the rare occasions that opposing counsel does do such things, then I use that phrase to make it clear to the Court that opposing counsel's statements are without legal merit.

Cin>>"Ok, you win...i'm out of here."

If you say so. Nothing stopping you from participating in the discussion.

Cin>>"Just a little something to think about: If you think the families involved are enjoying this debate and analyzation, you're loony."

I don't really care if they read it or not. I choose to discuss the matter with others. Whether the families choose to read these posts or not really has no bearing on whether or not I will choose to post here. Do you understand that, Cin?

Ra>>"Shes dancr, shes Tracie, shes got her own site, Please visit and see how shes always so right."

I imagine that a judge would show her the error of her ways.

Ra>>"Her kids are to never be seen at a school, She says Im the teacher and nobodys fool."

Well, that's her opinion, and she's welcome to it. :)

Ra>>"As regards Dennis Olson she claims to be sure, The baby adoption intentions were pure."

And as I have indicated, that is legally irrelevant.

Ra>>"Poor Sal he is trying to use common sense,"

Not necessarily. Just showing Dancr the legal reasoning involved. Whether or not that involves common sense is a matter of debate. And as any first-year law student will tell you, the law and common sense don't intersect very often. :)

Ra>>"Forget it my man for this cow is just dense."

Well, maybe that's true, but I wouldn't call her names. I'm trying to have a polite discussion here.

Stand by for the legal refutation.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 21, 2000.

Dancr>>Sal, hello. Thank you for your response. I'm impressed, and must admit that I was not expecting an answer, because my impression is that you are not a lawyer and would not go to the trouble of tracking down a citation if you didn't have the material handy. That said, however, I'm not entirely satisfied that you've identified any law that the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family.

I recognize that you, personally, are not satisfied, and thats fine. You, however, should recognize that matters would not have to be proven to your satisfaction (or the Olsen familys satisfaction or the birth familys satisfaction) in court. Only the judge would need to be convinced or satisfied.

You should also recognize that I would recommend that this moot matter be tried in civil court, before a judge, rather than in criminal court, before a jury. Later in your post, you made some very heated statements about me and my position that are completely untrue. I dont think that anyone INTENTIONALLY broke the law, but the facts DO appear to indicate that laws were broken. If I felt that the people involved intended to break the law, then I would be calling for a criminal investigation. As it stands, I feel that were looking at a civil matter, not a crucifixion, as another poster suggested.

Surely the Olsens and the birth family had good intentions; Ive never questioned that. Still, good intentions dont automatically satisfy Justice, Dancr, though a judge might take them into account if you presented them properly. Presented in a contentious manner, as you have done below, your arguments wouldnt last long in court. Youd just end up helping me make my case.

I recognize that you are not an attorney, and so I will strive to be patient and polite. I hope youll do the same. In my opinion, you havent tried very hard. Maybe you arent trying at all.

Dancr>>I will address them each in turn. Note that I am not looking up the exact wordings of these laws, but am relying on your descriptions of them.

I dont know what kinds of free legal resources are available on the web; I do know that Lexis and similar services are prohibitively expensive, unless you need them for work (like I do), or unless you are able to write the cost off as an expense. I know a 3-month student subscription to Lexis was $500 a few years ago. At any rate, I encourage you NOT to rely on my citations, but rather to consult legal resources yourself. Thats how attorneys do it, and I imagine youd get better results doing it that way yourself.

Dancr>>The Olsen family was not running a day care service. They offered their hospitality, gratis.

Whether or not the Olsens extended hospitality does not enter into the legal argument. By your logic, runaways who fall in with child pornographers and who have been extended hospitality (i.e. food, shelter, etc.) are therefore in a legally acceptable custodial arrangement. I am pretty sure that you are not suggesting that, but I am pointing out that your legal logic here is faulty. An individual (or group) is not made a legally acceptable custodian of a child simply because that individual (or group) has fed, clothed and housed the child. Therefore, IAW Georgia law, the Olsens were not made custodians simply by dint of their charitable act.

Dancr>>Are you suggesting that families must become certified daycare providers before they may allow young children to be a guest in their home?

Absolutely not. I am establishing that the state of Georgia takes child welfare SO SERIOUSLY that a parent or parents may not even drop their children off at a day care facility UNLESS the state has already been involved. If Georgia wants to check out every child care facility within its borders before parents can use them, then what makes you think that Georgia would smile with favor upon a parent sending two minor children to live with some stranger she only knows from the Internet? I cannot believe you thought I was advancing the argument in your previous statement.

The fact of the matter is that GA 16-12-1.1 clearly establishes the states interest in the welfare of young minor citizens whose parents, for reasons of employment or other business, require a safe and secure facility that can temporarily act as a custodial repository. In fact, the states interest in ensuring the welfare of children is so high that the state has mandated that all such facilities be inspected and certified by the state. Yet, this custodial interest cannot be construed to end when the business day does, and so that interest must be interpreted to exist at all times, and at all places. Therefore, temporary custody transfers (aside from social events like birthday parties, movie outings, sleepovers, etc.) must necessarily fall under the purview of this law, whether or not day care centers are the custodial receiver.

Dancr>>You know better than this.

Well, so do you, Dancr. The argument, as I have advanced it (and now, as I have explained it) is a precise example of a law the birth family may have broken.

Dancr>>This does not qualify as an example of any law that the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family. [TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF]

Well, thats your interpretation, Counselor. A colleague of mine who practices family law tells me that your argument (in Georgia, at least) would last about three seconds in front of a judge.

Dancr>>No kidding about GA15-11-6 being poorly written, as to the court being able to appoint a guardian for "any child whose custody is the subject of controversy.

Yes, I agree, but the law is the law. So barring that law being repealed or overturned, it is STILL in effect. Therefore, the controversy surrounding the children (mother and infant) would be sufficient reason IN AND OF ITSELF for Georgia to step in and take custody of BOTH children. We have established elsewhere that Georgia DHR and law enforcement authorities are empowered to take such children into custody, even over parental objections, and even before a court has acted. I make no judgments about the rightness or wrongness of the law; I simply observe that it would be interpreted and enforced in the way I have illustrated. We cant just pretend that law doesnt exist; some people call that malpractice.

Dancr>>TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF

Now I am certain that youre simply being difficult. Controversy is a pretty broad descriptor, and I hope that you would agree that there is/was/has been something of a controversy over this matter. That controversy is ALL that is necessary to set the legal wheels in motion. Had the birth family NOT sent their children to live with the Olsens, then there would have been no controversy, and then 15-11- 6 would simply not have applied. But as things stand, this law is quite pertinent here.

Dancr>>I will skip discussion of GA19-7-4, since you state that you do not suggest that it would apply to this case.

It does, however, reinforce the notion of DHR taking custody of children, even over parental objections, which is a very pertinent matter. I know the possibility may be upsetting to you (I find it disquieting, as well), but you asked for legal citations. You didnt ask for legal citations you would like or agree with. The law gets ugly sometimes.

Dancr>>You talk about how the birth father might come forward to claim the baby and prevent a future adoption. A law providing that a father may come forward  TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF.

Actually, it DOES. Without the fathers consent (except in some narrowly defined exceptions), sending the kids to the Olsen house would have been (and possibly was) illegal under this law as well. Transferring the children across state lines bring us another legal muddle  now you have TWO sets of state laws to navigate, plus any applicable Federal laws. This is a perfect example of a law potentially broken by the custody transfer we are discussing. In fact, depending on the facts of the case, this might even be definable as a kidnapping. If the birth family transferred the infant across state lines without the fathers permission (and Im working from memory here, so bear with me), then under certain circumstances, it could possibly be considered a kidnapping. I believe the father would have to have attained the age of majority first, though (i.e. not be a minor himself).

Dancr>>GA19-9-22, which requires a legal action to establish a change of guardianship, does not apply to this situation since there was no change of guardianship.

Dancr, you have just been legally outmanuevered. Sorry, but you must now choose WHICH applicable law was broken. Either 19-9-22 was broken (since there was no legal change of guardianship), OR the birth family knowingly endangered their children, under Georgia law. If you maintain that there was no custody transfer, then the act of sending the kids to live with unrelated strangers (the Olsens) constitutes child endangerment in Georgia. If you maintain that the children were not endangered, then you must show proof of a legal custody transfer. One or the other (and maybe even both) has been violated here.

I dont wish to be pedantic, but there are many situations like this in courtrooms. It is embarrassing to be outmanuevered this way  basically, to think that you have argued your clients way out of one violation, only to find that youve just argued yourself INTO another.

Plus, I was kind of hoping youd do exactly what you just did. :)

Dancr>>TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF

Choose one or the other, Dancr. Theres your broken law.

Dancr>>GA49-5-8 relates to adoptions, not to just going to live with somebody. TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF

Well, Dancr, there is no such thing as a legal going to live with somebody status. Further, GA 49-5-8 clearly covers more than just adoptions. The text relates to adoptions, child care facilities AND custodial transfers.

Dancr>>All you say about GA49-5-9 is that it provides for Georgia law enforcement officials to assist GDHR officials in their duties. TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF

This clearly establishes how seriously the state of Georgia views child custody matters. This serious legal attitude goes hand in hand with the clearly established state interest in ensuring child welfare. This is called a supporting citation, Dancr. It establishes that the legal point I am trying to make is reinforced by multiple laws, not just by one.

Dancr>>GA19-8- 24 relates mainly to adoption agents, and not to the parent(s).

You are incorrect.

It shall be unlawful for any PERSON, organization, corporation, hospital, or association of any kind whatsoever which has not been established as a child-placing agency by the department to: (emphasis mine)

Did you miss that, Dancr? GA 19-8-24 relates to ANYONE or ANY GROUP. In other words, if you dont have the states permission, then you dont do those things. Go back and re-read.

Dancr>>That code specifically states that it does not apply to private communications by individuals who are seeking to have their own child adopted,

Computer bulletin boards are not considered private communications in any state. In fact, theres a law pending here in Georgia that would make it legal for parents to record their minor childs telephone conversations. Further, a law under consideration here a few years ago would have held that even e-mail was not private communication. At any rate, the postings were not private.

Dancr>>or to parents who name a lawyer who will be handling their case.

That holds only if the attorneys name is attached to the public communication, as is clearly stated in the Code section I posted. As no attorney was named as a point of contact, you have just established for me that this law would have been broken, if these events took place in Georgia. Thanks for the legal assist, Counselor.

There may be some disagreement as to what constitutes a private communication. I do not consider the old TB2K board to have been private since anyone could read it, but I can see where someone might argue that it was. In any case, though, TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF.

Sorry, Dancr, but you have already made my legal point for me. Had these events taken place in Georgia, this particular law was broken the moment Grandma pressed the submit button to post the message. The kids didnt even HAVE to go live with the Olsens for this one to have been broken.

Dancr>>You suggest that the birth family should have gotten a decent attorney (Uh, isn't that an oxymoron?). This may be true, although this seems to me to be another one of those lawyer full employment laws. If you are an attorney, I understand that you may be upset that anyone exists who is not paying attorneys every time they turn around.

Do you ever go to a doctor when you are not sick? Sure, to get vaccinations or to get a checkup or mammogram. If I were a doctor, Id certainly want to see a given patient periodically so we can catch problems early. Im sure glad that my doctor caught that basal cell carcinoma on my neck a few years ago, before it had a chance to spread.

So, Dancr, when do you take your car in to the shop? When you hear a funny noise coming from under the hood? Or do you wait until your transmission falls out?

The fact of the matter is that there are many problems of many sorts that can be easily addressed by professionals BEFORE they get too big. If I had waited too long with that skin cancer on my neck, then I might have been out of work for a while to recuperate. In my mothers case, she waited too long to see her doctor, and almost had to undergo a mastectomy. Live with that under-the-hood funny noise too long, and your mechanic might not be able to help you.

So why dont you think people shouldnt consult an attorney from time to time? I know an attorney who specializes in contract law, and she gets a steady stream of people coming in to have her look at employment contracts or termination agreements or nondisclosure agreements or noncompete clauses before they sign. And why shouldnt they? If an employer can use a lawyer to come after you, then why sign your rights away? Why NOT get an attorney to check you out before some new undertaking?

If you dont like attorneys, Dancr, thats fine. But the fact of the matter is that the Olsens could have avoided legal questions by consulting an attorney first. I personally wonder if Mr. Olsen HAS gotten himself an attorney since all this happened, and maybe thats why he never discusses the topic any more? If I were defending him in this matter, Id tell him to keep quiet, stay out of sight online and not talk about any of this.

Dancr>>TDNQAAEOALTTBFMHBBSTCTLWTOF

Yes, well, considering that wasnt a law I was talking about, youre just being obtuse by repeating that line. But thats fine; it doesnt change anything.

Dancr>>Neither the Olsen family, nor the birth family ever claimed that they had broken any law,

Well, most people who break laws dont usually advertise the fact, do they? So what, exactly, are you trying to say?

Dancr>>according to my reading of these three threads of which I'm aware. Your stating that they have claimed that they "had a good reason" (your quote of whom???) "to break the law" (my quote of you), is a misrepresentation of their position, unless you have information that does not appear here.

You are once again incorrect. The stated reason for the circumvention of the adoption procedure (and consequent illegal custody transfer) was Y2K. Y2K is not a legally acceptable reason, nor is it any sort of defense. I have established that there would be cause to bring civil charges, had these events taken place in Georgia. The Y2K reason is a matter of public record on the TB2000 board. The facts of that posting are established and irrefutable. There is no misrepresentation on my part. Wishing wont make that posting go away, Dancr.

Dancr>>I have read your two letters most carefully looking for any other examples you may have provided to which I have may have failed to react. In summary, in my opinion, you have not stated a single law that the birth family may have broken by sending their children to live with the Olsen family.

Well, Dancr, I wouldnt have to prove it to YOUR satisfaction. Id have to prove it to a judges satisfaction. And I would be as pleased as punch to meet you in a courtroom to argue it, Counselor. Youd just about make my case FOR me. :)

Dancr>>Try as you might, (to the point of claiming that the Olsen home was a day care center, even), you could not find any.

Incorrect. I did not claim that the Olsen home was a day care center. That was simply your misinterpretation. Further, I have demonstrated how these laws are applicable, beyond a shadow of a legal doubt. In some cases, you have even helped me do that. Perhaps you dont recognize that I need not establish matters beyond a shadow of a Dancr doubt  whether you agree with the laws or the legal reasoning is really quite irrelevant. The arguments I have presented would hold up quite handily in court, whether you like them or not.

Dancr>>This is not to say that a skilled attorney could not eventually turn up some obscure law with which to beat them over the head. As most of us are aware, any one of us could be found to be violating some obscure law at any given moment.

The laws I cited are not obscure. It took me less than fifteen minutes to find them, and I dont even practice that type of law.

Dancr>>In my opinion, you were calling for these two families to be harassed.

Indeed? Please point to where I called for them to be troubled, harassed or brought up on charges. I am eager to see that. In any event, whether I called for those things or not is irrelevant. I am within my rights to comment as I see fit on this board. I was under the impression that people on this board were exercising their freedom of speech rights. Was I mistaken in that assumption?

Dancr>>I recognize that the law in most states provides that there shall be no penalty against people who make knowingly false accusations of child abuse, in order to encourage more true reports.

Hmm. I dont think I accused anyone of child abuse. I pointed out laws that may have been broken, had this chain of events taken place in Georgia. Further, your attempt to personalize this case (e.g. point an accusing finger at me) is a quick way to earn a contempt citation from a judge. In any event, your legal tactic is spurious and naove, as is your legal reasoning.

Dancr>>That does not absolve you or the people who actually did make calls to Child Protective Services (or whatever it is called in the applicable states) of the bad karma for what you have done.

I find it quite telling that you appear to believe I have made a call to CPS. I have not, though I have considered contacting the District Attorneys office in Mr. Olsens county. I would do that as a prelude to filing an amicus curiae (loosely: friend of the court) brief, in which I would point out the state interest in protecting and maintaining the welfare of children, and the concomitant interest in overseeing all custody transfer cases involving minors.

Finally, Dancr, the moment karma becomes a legal concept, be sure to let me know, okay?

Until then, well just stick with the law.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 21, 2000.

Yawn

Sal, if you are going to write a book, perhaps you can try to make it a bit more interesting.

-- cin (cinloo@aol.com), April 21, 2000.

Consumer I do stand corrected,

The secret with me is protected.

With the stroke of a pen,

You have added a 10,

Which confirms that you must be connected!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 21, 2000.

Sal, thanks for taking the time to respond to Dancr's post point by point.

You've pointed out many good facts to know about the law in general, and how the courts and judges function. Things I've had to learn the hard way myself. The law is the law and our opinions and feelings don't have any bearing on it. It's nothing personal. Just the law.

" I know the possibility may be upsetting to you (I find it disquieting, as well), but you asked for legal citations. You didnt ask for legal citations you would like or agree with. The law gets ugly sometimes."

The law gets ugly only if it goes counter to our own wishes and opinions, but that same law for whom it's made to protect, it is beautiful. What seems so ugly about laws to people IMO is the fact that it doesn't take emotions and feelings into account. But if it did, it could never be impartial and fair.

-- Ann A. Lyze (@ .), April 21, 2000.

Cin-- No problem finding "analyzation" in my dictionaries. Webster's and Funk and Wagnalls.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), April 21, 2000.

Cin>>"Yawn" Cin>>"Sal, if you are going to write a book, perhaps you can try to make it a bit more interesting."

I could respond with a quote from Dr. Seuss that might be more your speed, Cin, but I'm trying to be nice, so I won't do that. What I will do instead is observe that my post wasn't written to appeal to you. In other words, if you don't like it, too bad.

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 22, 2000.

Ann>>Sal, thanks for taking the time to respond to Dancr's post point by point.

Thank you, Ann. I appreciate that. Ann>>You've pointed out many good facts to know about the law in general, and how the courts and judges function. Things I've had to learn the hard way myself.

It is unfortunate that most people's first experience with an attorney only occurs in a crisis. Because of that, I feel that many people can't look at the situation objectively (looking instead through an emotional filter) and end up associating strong negative emotions with the courts, the legal system and attorneys in general.

I do feel strongly that many people would only be helping themselves by consulting an attorney before signing contracts, starting a business, buying a house, etc. My friend who reads employment contracts can generally read and advise a client on one in 30 minutes or less, and she bills under a hundred bucks for that service. If she doesn't like the language in the contract, she will tell the cilent why, and have her secretary type up alternate language for the client to take back to the prospective employer. All that can be done in under an hour, and we're still under $200. That's a pretty low price to pay for "insurance" that you won't be jerked around by your employer later on. Sure, employers bitch and moan, saying "we can't make any changes to our standard contract, but that's a load of bull. They can make any changes you can negotiate out of them. There is absolutely no truth to the legal fiction that "every one of our employees has to sign the exact same contract." If you're unionized, different rules may apply, but otherwise, you're free to negotiate whatever you can get.

With the emphasis on this (and other) boards on being "insured" against all kinds of problems and hassles, I simply can't understand why this perfectly reasonable suggestion comes under fire.

Ann>>"The law is the law and our opinions and feelings don't have any bearing on it. It's nothing personal. Just the law."

PRECISELY. Thank you.

Ann>>"The law gets ugly only if it goes counter to our own wishes and opinions, but that same law for whom it's made to protect, it is beautiful. What seems so ugly about laws to people IMO is the fact that it doesn't take emotions and feelings into account. But if it did, it could never be impartial and fair."

Well said, Ann. :)

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 22, 2000.

I thought your answers interesting as well, Sal. I have just a few points. First, I think both the Olson family [and I wish folks would notice that it's ON...not EN] as well as the other family resided in Wisconsin. In this case, I'm fairly certain that no inter-state laws were violated. I understand the law gets trickier when state boundaries get crossed.

I haven't talked to Dennis specifically about this child case, because I don't personally CARE about this case. I think I told you elsewhere that if I wanted to get whipped up about someone dumping a baby, I'd get whipped up about the babies being dumped in my home state. However, he DID sent me an E-mail regarding this thread wherein he said that the daughter and her infant stayed with him until March 6. He ALSO stated that the mother stayed with him for a time as well. It COULD be that the child protective agencies INSISTED that the mother be WITH her daughter in the Olson home, as the mother claims she was there only for a few weeks. As I said, I don't know the details. When Dennis saw this thread he sent me something in an E-mail stating that I may post the information, but I don't like to be an intermediary so didn't present the information at the time.

We learn new things about the law every day. I have a friend in Chicago who has a co-worker who lived with a woman but was NOT married to her. She got seriously ill and he signed her in to a hospital. She had no insurance and he ended up being responsible for her hospital bills simply because he signed her in. She died, BTW, and he's STILL paying those hospital bills.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 22, 2000.

Anita>> "I thought your answers interesting as well, Sal."

Thank you. :)

Anita>> "I have just a few points. First, I think both the Olson family [and I wish folks would notice that it's ON...not EN] as well as the other family resided in Wisconsin. In this case, I'm fairly certain that no inter-state laws were violated. I understand the law gets trickier when state boundaries get crossed."

Thanks for that clarification, Anita. I appreciate the assist. And thanks also for the correct name spelling. I think I may have switched back and forth on that spelling a couple of times.

Anita>>"I haven't talked to Dennis specifically about this child case, because I don't personally CARE about this case. I think I told you elsewhere that if I wanted to get whipped up about someone dumping a baby, I'd get whipped up about the babies being dumped in my home state."

I am pleased to report that the hospital baby-dumping law failed in the Georgia General Assembly this year. For various reasons, I am strongly opposed to that law.

Anita>>"However, he DID sent me an E-mail regarding this thread wherein he said that the daughter and her infant stayed with him until March 6. He ALSO stated that the mother stayed with him for a time as well. It COULD be that the child protective agencies INSISTED that the mother be WITH her daughter in the Olson home, as the mother claims she was there only for a few weeks. As I said, I don't know the details."

This all sounds plausible. It also seems to suggest that the Wisconsin version of DHS did, in fact, come calling at the Olson household. Whether or not someone from online called them is still open to debate, however.

I'd like to add that I heard something disturbing about that visit through back channels, but, not having any corroboration, I prefer not to post it. If you're at all interested, Anita, we can discuss it through private e-mail.

Anita>>"When Dennis saw this thread he sent me something in an E-mail stating that I may post the information, but I don't like to be an intermediary so didn't present the information at the time."

Fair enough. Thanks for filling us in.

Anita>>"We learn new things about the law every day. I have a friend in Chicago who has a co-worker who lived with a woman but was NOT married to her. She got seriously ill and he signed her in to a hospital. She had no insurance and he ended up being responsible for her hospital bills simply because he signed her in. She died, BTW, and he's STILL paying those hospital bills.

A sad story, to be sure. I don't know what the applicable laws are in Illinois; I'd hazard a guess that there may be no "Good Samaritan" law there, either. For those of you who don't know what that is, a "Good Samaritan" law protects individuals who try to administer first aid to save a life, but who fail. The idea is that if you're qualified to administer CPR or whatever, and you make the attempt, the state shouldn't hold you responsible for the patient's death in the event you fail.

Do we have any Illinois residents or medical professionals on the board who can add to that discussion?

-- Sal Monella (too.much@lawschool.net), April 25, 2000.